wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (10/23/90)
In article <Oct.21.01.53.36.1990.24980@athos.rutgers.edu> mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: >Also, I dispute the notion that intercommunion *necessarily* means approval. >Anglican churches, as a rule, invite ALL baptized to partake of communion, >regardless of denomination (within limits, but they are extremely wide). >This represents no apporval at all other than that of the validity of >baptism-- and if Wisconsin and Missouri care to dissent to this on the basis >of doctrinal differences, they have just declared their own baptisms >invalid: after all, their chain of baptisms passes through Rome, as with the >other protestants. Lutherans (presumably almost all of us) recognize the validity of any baptism in which 1. Water is applied to the individual. 2. The Baptism is performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19). We show this acknowledgement when we do not require new members, who received Christian baptism in other churches, to be re-baptized. I mention this because there is a man in my congregation who belonged to several churches before ours. We are the first church that has not re-baptized him. I believe we might question the validity of a baptism performed by a church that teaches false doctrine regarding the triune nature of God (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.), because then it is not clear what is meant by baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is strange to hear you say that because we declare ourselves separate from Rome, that our baptisms are not valid. This is Donatism, which is rejected as much by Rome as by us. Augustine, in particular, waged battles against this heresy. The validity of a baptism depends not on the faith of the baptized individual, nor on the faith or doctrine of the one who baptizes, but only on Christ's word, command, and promise: "Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved." David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "He that believes and is baptized Shall see the Lord's salvation; Baptized into the death of Christ, He is a new creation. Thro' Christ's redemption he shall stand Among the glorious heavenly band Of ev'ry tribe and nation." --"Enhver som tror og bliver doebt" Thomas Kingo, 1689. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [I'd be interesting in knowing what groups rebaptize those who have already been baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (I'll make an exception for those who insist on immersion, as long as they accept those from other groups who have been baptized by immersion.) I haven't run into rebaptism. --clh]
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (10/25/90)
Charley Wingate seemed to make reference to a "chain of baptisms"
leading back through the ages, by which we all descend from the Roman
church. Leaving aside Christian groups in India and the middle east
which have never been associated with Rome, he forgets that a large
number of churches, including both his own Episcopalian and the Roman
church accept baptisms as valid even if performed by the unbaptized.
There is no chain of baptisms necessary. If this were not so, there
would be a tendency toward Donatism.
-mib
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!bobn@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu (Bob Niedergerke) (10/25/90)
In article <Oct.23.04.07.59.1990.11266@athos.rutgers.edu> our moderator writes: > >[I'd be interesting in knowing what groups rebaptize those who have >already been baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son, and >Holy Spirit. (I'll make an exception for those who insist on >immersion, as long as they accept those from other groups who have >been baptized by immersion.) I haven't run into rebaptism. --clh] I have only run into this as it applies to the LDS church. For reasons which escape me, my baptism, which _was_ with water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, seems meaningless to them. If I were to join them, they would insist that I be re-baptised. This to me seems unnecessary. I would appreciate it if this could be explained to me, by post or e-mail. Thanks in advance, Bob
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (10/25/90)
In article <Oct.23.04.07.59.1990.11266@athos.rutgers.edu> The moderator writes: >[I'd be interest[ed] in knowing what groups rebaptize those who have >already been baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son, and >Holy Spirit. (I'll make an exception for those who insist on >immersion, as long as they accept those from other groups who have >been baptized by immersion.) I haven't run into rebaptism. --clh] One such group is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). The reason is that we look on baptism as, among other things, the making of a covenant with God. As such the person doing the baptizing acts as an agent for God and should be authorized so to act. Since we believe the authority to act in the name of God was lost shortly after the time of the original apostles we do not recognize baptisms performed by other churches. We believe this authority was restored in 1829 and is the authority used to organize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 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. He taught them of Jesus and rebaptized them. There is not a lot of information here about just what the problem was. They are refered to as "disciples" indicating that they were Christians, but the passage implies did not have had a full understanding of the gospel. This may indicate that they had been improperly taught. If so probably the person teaching them was not really authorized to do so or to baptize them. (I suspect we do not have enough information to really pin down the reasons for this rebaptism, but this seems like a reasonable possibility.) In any case, Paul thought it necessary to baptize them again.
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (10/25/90)
David Wagner writes: >Lutherans (presumably almost all of us) recognize the validity of any >baptism in which >1. Water is applied to the individual. >2. The Baptism is performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, > and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19). Last time I checked, there is also the requirement that the minister be a christian, i.e., baptized. >It is strange to hear you say that because we declare ourselves separate >from Rome, that our baptisms are not valid. This is Donatism, which >is rejected as much by Rome as by us. Augustine, in particular, waged >battles against this heresy. But the same argument can be applied to the Eucharist. -- 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." [Donatism is specifically the claim that the validity of a sacrament depends upon the spiritual or ethical status of the minister, including his status as a member of a schismatic organization. So the claim that baptisms by schismatics are invalid simply because they are in schism -- assuming all of the formal requirements are met -- is most specifically Donatism. However this can get complicated if one of the formal requirements is that the person has authority, and the model of authority limits it to a specific group. A Catholic might claim that Protestant communions are invalid because in order to have a valid communion, the minister must be a validly ordained priest, and Protestants don't have any way to ordain priests (even if they wanted to). This claim is not normally considered Donatist. If someone wanted to claim that Protestant baptisms are invalid, this claim could be Donatist or not depending upon the exact reasoning. Consider the following possible arguments 1) baptism can only be performed by baptised persons. At some point in the history of Protestantism the chain of baptisms was broken because people were not baptised (or were baptized by those who hadn't thenselves been baptized) 2) Protestant baptisms meet all the formal requirements, but because Protestants are in schism their sacramental actions are invalid. The first claim might be false, but would not be Donatist. The second is specifically Donatist. The issue with the Eucharist is analogous to the first argument. I'm not sure exactly what argument (if any) is being made against Protestant baptisms, as I don't recall the original claim. --clh]
esaholm@polaris.utu.fi (Esa Holmberg) (10/28/90)
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: >>Lutherans (presumably almost all of us) recognize the validity of any >>baptism in which >Last time I checked, there is also the requirement that the minister be a >christian, i.e., baptized. True, but there is however no requirement that the baptism to be done by a minister/priest. It is recommended, but not obligatory. Instead, the one who baptizes, must be christian (baptized). -- _________________________________________________________________________ ( Esa Holmberg, Turku Telephone Company, AXE, Linnankatu 4, 20100 TURKU, ) ) Finland ! Elisa: Holmberg Esa TT (tt) ! fax +358 21 502 298 / ( Internet: esaholm@utu.fi, esa.holmberg/o=tt/@elisa.fi / [I believe the term "minister" was being used in the sense of "one who administers the sacrament", not in the sense of "ordained person". --clh]
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (10/28/90)
In article <Oct.25.03.17.47.1990.29704@athos.rutgers.edu> 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]
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (10/28/90)
In article <Oct.25.03.39.22.1990.553@athos.rutgers.edu> mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: David Wagner writes: >Lutherans (presumably almost all of us) recognize the validity of any >baptism in which >1. Water is applied to the individual. >2. The Baptism is performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, > and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19). Last time I checked, there is also the requirement that the minister be a christian, i.e., baptized. Though I already followed up to this, I think I ought to be more precise. The Church through the ages, ever since the end of the Donatist controversy made it quite clear that rebaptism needs to be avoided, has required that the definition of baptism be very broad. In addition to the two requirements above a third is usually added: that the baptism be inteded as the sacrament. For example, an "acted out" baptism in a play or movie is not the sacrament, despite the use of water and the Trinitarian formula. Most churches have, for reasons of order, additional guidelines about baptism. Presbyterians emphasize its administration by an ordained minister and performance in front of the entire congregation as a part of worship. Most denominations emphasize its administration by the ordained, which are, of course, baptized. But baptisms performed outside the normal rules for a group are rarely considered invalid simply for that reason. With the exception of the LDS, I know of no such requirement in any major denomination. To sum up, while I'm sure the Episcopal church requires baptisms to be performed by a priest ordained by a bishop in the apostolic succession, I'm also sure that they accept as valid baptisms even those administered by non-christians. -- Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
HWT@bnr.ca (H.W.) (10/28/90)
David H. Wagner writes: >The validity of a baptism depends not on the faith of the baptized >individual, nor on the faith or doctrine of the one who baptizes, >but only on Christ's word, command, and promise: "Whoever believes >and is baptized shall be saved." So much so that I have been told that baptism administered by a non-Christian is considered true baptism (provided it is done sincerely). Typically, this only happens in childbirth, where the child is not expected to survive. Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | No humor available today uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA +1 613-765-2337 | try again tomorrow. [According to what I've heard before (and the Catholic Encyclopedia) Catholics authorize baptism even by non-Christians in emergency situations. Episcopaleans seem to allow emergency baptism, but based on comments here I assume they restrict it to Christians. Most Protestant groups consider emergency baptism to be superstitious, and do not permit baptism except by pastors. However (aside from the immersion issue) all of these churches accept each other's baptisms, so as far as I know Protestant churches would not rebaptize a Catholic who had been baptized by a non-Christian, as long as that person had been considered a baptized member of the Catholic Church. --clh]
finnerty@sal-sun45.usc.edu (Brian Finnerty) (10/29/90)
The Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics can validly baptize. A baptism can be validly performed by anyone, even a Protestant or even a non-Christian. To be valid, the person doing the baptism must have the general intention of accomplishing what the Catholic Church means by baptism. Water must be applied to the head of the recipient and the person doing the baptism must invoke the Trinitarian formula of "I baptize you **in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.**" In general, Protestant baptisms are considered valid if they invoke the Trinitarian formula and the use of water (by pouring, immersion, or if necessary sprinkling). This is consistent with the re-baptism in Acts. The Holy Spirit was not included in the original baptism (of John), so the baptism was invalid. This is also consistent with the canons of the Council of Nicea which did not require the re-baptism of heretics or schismatics, unless the form of the baptisms had violated the Trinitarian forumla. Valid ordinations and valid masses can be performed by bishops and priests not in communion with Rome. Any validly ordained bishop can validly ordain another bishop, and any validly ordained priest or bishop can celebrate mass. The Orthodox Churches (Greek and Russian) have valid masses and ordinations. However, the Protestant churches do not have validly ordained bishops, because the chain of valid ordinations was broken at the time of the reformation. The chain of valid ordinations was broken because the Protestants had a different concept of what ordination means, and what powers it confers. (For example, Catholics believe that bishops and priests have the power to forgive sins and to celebrate the sacrifice of the mass.) Protestant ordinations were performed without the intention of communicating the powers that Catholics believe are intrinsic to priestly ordination, so these ordinations were not valid. Brian Finnerty
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (10/29/90)
Let me remind people of the origin of this thread, as it may have got lost over time. Charley had mentioned intercommunion between Anglican and (some) Lutheran groups in this country, and David Wagner had taken exception (from the standpoint of one of the non-intercommuning synods) on the basis of doctrinal purity being important (to the Wisconsinites) as a criterion in this matter. Baptism was first mentioned by Charley as the "filter" used by Episcopal churches for admission to communion. The point being *exactly* that disputes of doctrine are not (by us) taken as grounds for denying communion. Charley (proceding like I do, or many other Anglicans, by way of triple or quadruple negatives that tend to lose other groups :-)) suggested that David's exclusiveness amounted to a sort of Donatism -- and he challenged on the matter of baptism *precisely* because he understood that David *would* accept a non-Lutheran baptism (the multiple negatives come in in the suggestion that otherwise the Wisconsin synod might be questioning its own link by baptisms with Christ.) There is an issue here I am curious about. *Are* there denominations that accept baptism by a non-Christian? Charley's assumption (and mine) was that this is not the case. We know (and I, in some measure accept) the Catholic doctrine of "baptism of desire" -- that is, that God may _in extremis_ take an intent to be baptized as a form of admission to the People of God. But setting that aside, *is* it ever "acceptable" to YOUR denomination (O reader!) to admit someone "baptized" (in totally proper "form") by a non-Christian without requesting a subsequent "true" baptism? If you are uneasy about this, it implies that you DO want the chain of baptisms to be unbroken back to Christ and his disciples. This is what Charley was implying in saying that our own baptismal tradition (except for such few readers here as are Orthodox) necessarily *will* go through Rome. writing as a former catecheumon of the Missouri Synod :-) -- Michael L. Siemon Inflict Thy promises with each m.siemon@ATT.COM Occasion of distress, ...!att!sfsup!mls That from our incoherence we standard disclaimer May learn to put our trust in Thee [Both our Catholic posters and an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia suggest that the Catholic Church does accept baptism by non-Christians. Thus you are requiring an unbroken chain back to a church that does not itself require one to begin with. I have verified in my copy of the Draft BCP that the Episcopal Church does actually require the minister of baptism to be baptized, even in the case of emergency baptisms. So there is a difference here between your practice and Catholic practice that I think neither side may have realized. An interesting question: would you rebaptize a Catholic whose baptism had been by a non-Christian? --clh]
walsh@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (10/29/90)
In article <Oct.25.03.08.14.1990.29353@athos.rutgers.edu>, bobn@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu (Bob Niedergerke) writes: > In article <Oct.23.04.07.59.1990.11266@athos.rutgers.edu> our moderator writes: >> >>[I'd be interesting in knowing what groups rebaptize those who have >>already been baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son, and >>Holy Spirit. (I'll make an exception for those who insist on >>immersion, as long as they accept those from other groups who have >>been baptized by immersion.) I haven't run into rebaptism. --clh] > The traditional Eastern Orthodox view is that you cannot baptize if you do not belong to the Church - this non-inclusion extends to members of western religions (Protestant, Catholic) Historically they rebaptized people who had been baptized in western churches. Altho after Peter the Great, the Russians stopped doing this. This has been enforced with varying degrees of strictness and nowadays i don't think it is enforced much, at least not among Orthodox in the U.S. ando.
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (10/29/90)
Michael I. Bushnell writes: >Charley Wingate seemed to make reference to a "chain of baptisms" leading >back through the ages, by which we all descend from the Roman church. >Leaving aside Christian groups in India and the middle east which have never >been associated with Rome, This came up in the context of protestant churches, whose connection with the eastern chrurches on a sacramental level has been essentially non-existent. For the protestant churches, the chain of baptisms does pass through the (hated) medieval RC church. >[...] he forgets that a large number of churches, including both his own >Episcopalian and the Roman church accept baptisms as valid even if performed >by the unbaptized. That's not true. Under "Emergency Baptism", p. 313 BCP 1979, it says that "any baptized person may administer baptism according to the following form." The Episcopal Church formula here is (a) one candidate, not already baptized, (b) one minister, baptized, (c) intent to baptize, (d) water, and (e) the words "I baptize you...". -- 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."
farkas%qual@sun.com (Frank Farkas) (10/30/90)
[The following comment arises from the discussion on the validity of baptism, though it doesn't seem to arise from any specific comment, other than perhaps the mention of the Catholic practice of emergency baptism. --clh] I find it strange that a new born needs baptism! Can someone tell me why? If I read the Bible, I understand that baptism is unto repentance. Can someone tell me what is a new born baby need to repent of? The second problem I have is regarding what happens if a new born baby won't get baptized. Most of the world is not Christian. What happens if they are not baptized? With brotherly love, Frank
billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill W. Gripp) (10/30/90)
[According to what I've heard before (and the Catholic Encyclopedia) Catholics authorize baptism even by non-Christians in emergency situations. Episcopaleans seem to allow emergency baptism, but based on comments here I assume they restrict it to Christians. Most Protestant groups consider emergency baptism to be superstitious, and do not permit baptism except by pastors. However (aside from the immersion issue) all of these churches accept each other's baptisms, so as far as I know Protestant churches would not rebaptize a Catholic who had been baptized by a non-Christian, as long as that person had been considered a baptized member of the Catholic Church. --clh] From my experience, many Protestant denominations only recognize a baptism to be "valid" after one has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour. It is considered symbolic of the old man dying and the rebirth as a new creation in Christ. This being the case, a person who is a baptised member of a church, Catholic, Protestant, or any others, but who does not profess a personal relationship with Jesus Christ would receive a recommendation to be "rebaptised". Baptism is not considered necessary for salvation (as it is in for example the Catholic Church), but an outward profession of faith, a public declaration if you will. Striving to serve HIM, Bill Gripp [Right. I should have said 'aside from the immersion and "believer's baptism" issues'. They tend to go together, which probably led to my failure to mention both. As to believer's baptism, as you probably know by now, there is a subtle difference in what baptism symbolizes for groups that practice infant baptism vs. those that do not. Those that insist on believer's baptism intend baptism to symbolize our decision for God. Those who practice infant baptism intend it to symbolize God's decision for us. Since God chooses us before we are ready to respond, some consider it perfectly appropriate to symbolize God's call to us by baptizing people from the beginning. Baptism symbolizes a person's entry into the Church. Christ is clear that children are part of his Church. In practice it's probably good for both customs to exist, as they each emphasize an important aspect of our faith. --clh]
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (10/30/90)
In Catholic doctrine, to validly baptize you need this: - pure and natural water (the matter) - the formula: I baptize you in the name of the Father, etc. (the form) - intention to baptize (the intention) There is no requirement on the minister besides whatever is implied by these three. The reason for the ease with which this sacrament can be administered is its universal importance. Such a situation is, of course, not a normal one. If the person being baptized in such a case did not die, then a priest would attempt to ascertain sometime later whether the baptism was done properly. If there was no doubt, it would not be repeated, because rebaptizing is sacrilege -- an abuse of a holy thing. If there was some doubt, a conditional rebaptism would be performed (If you are able to be baptized, I baptize you, etc.). If it is obvious that the baptism was invalid, it would be performed unconditionally. In some times and places in the past, at least, there may have been some problems with Protestant baptisms, because of the cavalier way in which the sacrament was treated. In the past, some of the Orthodox hesitated about Catholic baptisms, as I think somebody noted. The case of Baptism and the Eucharist is slightly different in that the minister *is* important in the Eucharist.
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (10/30/90)
Our moderator, commenting on one of my posts, says: > Thus you are requiring an unbroken chain back to a > church that does not itself require one to begin with. I have > verified in my copy of the Draft BCP that the Episcopal Church does > actually require the minister of baptism to be baptized, even in the > case of emergency baptisms. So there is a difference here between > your practice and Catholic practice that I think neither side may have > realized. An interesting question: would you rebaptize a Catholic > whose baptism had been by a non-Christian? I suppose the question *is* interesting theoretically (it is related to the question *I* asked, after all :-)) My own, personal, opinion may be more "liberal" than the official doctrine of my church (which I am trying to trace down; the BCP formulation is likely to cover over that which is doctrinally more complex than the public statement.) In practice, I don't think there is all that much to be concerned about. My suspicion is that 99+% of Roman Catholic baptisms *are* performed by priests, and that of the cases where an _in extremis_ baptism was done by a non-Christian, the majority are in situations of martyrdom, where there is no continuing chain from the "irregularly" baptized. (And I will in *no* way contest the inclusion of such martyrs in the Christian community. Indeed, I suspect that the Catholic doctrine was developed *precisely* to deal with the situation of such martyrdoms.) In any case, my *personal* prejudice is to accept as Christian *anyone* who has taken the name to himself -- and I will tend to *assume* some form of baptism. If there has been none, then of course I will "require" it in the form I find most appropriate. But I am in no position to be picky here -- I was baptized by Methodists, after all :-) In short, no I do *not* "require" a chain of baptisms, though I *expect* it -- the point here is that people *will* have been baptized in almost all real cases by Christians, and that this *is* a link back to the start of our faith, and indeed back to the baptism of our Lord. I don't "base" anything on this link, but it is there nonetheless -- and as Charley said this linkage to Christ goes, for most of us in the non-Orthodox churches, *through* the Roman church. I was interested to observe the posting by one of our Orthodox readers, that baptism in their doctrine, required a Christian (and more particularly, a Christian accepted as being in the communion of the "true" Church) as minister. The Anglican position isn't *quite* so strict :-), but I am inclined to wonder *when* Rome adopted its more lenient rules? The difference in doctrine between Rome and Canterbury here surprises me. I am inclined to suspect that this is one of those aspects of Roman theo- logy that developed *after* the division of our communions. -- Michael L. Siemon Inflict Thy promises with each m.siemon@ATT.COM Occasion of distress, ...!att!sfsup!mls That from our incoherence we standard disclaimer May learn to put our trust in Thee
esaholm@polaris.utu.fi (Esa Holmberg) (11/02/90)
farkas%qual@sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >I find it strange that a new born needs baptism! Can someone tell me why? Simple: even new born babies share the sin of Adam, and thus do need baptism.. -- _________________________________________________________________________ ( Esa Holmberg, Turku Telephone Company, AXE, Linnankatu 4, 20100 TURKU, ) ) Finland ! Elisa: Holmberg Esa TT (tt) ! fax +358 21 502 298 / ( Internet: esaholm@utu.fi, esa.holmberg/o=tt/@elisa.fi /
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (11/02/90)
OK, I understand that the Roman Catholic Church will recognize a baptism performed by a non-Catholic, even a total atheist, if death appears imminent. Interesting theory, but I can't help but wonder if it is ever done in practice. If this person is such a non-believer why would he decide to baptize the person (usually an infant who can't ask for it)? If a believer is there to ask that the baptism be performed, why wouldn't the believer do it? Just curious. [The only concrete case I know of is when a newly born child is about to die. Presumably the doctor or nurse is trying to save the parents from unnecessary anguish. I'm fairly sure it has happened. Does anyone know how common it is? --clh]
vm0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent Paul Mulhern) (11/02/90)
I'd like to know about the 'emergency baptism' thing. What is it actually supposed to do? I've heard of it before, but never understood why such a thing would be done. I know of a police sergeant who is Episcopal, who, at the scene of a nasty auto accident, "emergency-baptized" a victim who was not expected to live. Well, the guy did survive and turned out to be Jewish. He got pretty mad that they had done that to him... [There are a couple of postings in this group that respond to this question. Please read through this group before responding again... --clh]
garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (11/05/90)
In article <Oct.29.00.44.26.1990.11350@athos.rutgers.edu> finnerty@sal-sun45.usc.edu (Brian Finnerty) writes: >The Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics can validly baptize. In all the discussion on baptism, I haven't seen any dialog on the prerequisite of baptism --repentance. Acts 2:38. I would think that would have more bearing on an effective baptism than who does it which is not addressed specifically in Scripture. gary hipp
drezac@dcsc.dla.mil (Duane L. Rezac) (11/06/90)
From article <Oct.30.00.17.05.1990.6701@athos.rutgers.edu>, by farkas%qual@sun.com (Frank Farkas): > I find it strange that a new born needs baptism! Can someone tell me why? > If I read the Bible, I understand that baptism is unto repentance. Can > someone tell me what is a new born baby need to repent of? > > The second problem I have is regarding what happens if a new born baby won't > get baptized. Most of the world is not Christian. What happens if they are > not baptized? > > With brotherly love, > > Frank Well, From seeing most of the responses to this question, I guess I'll have to get into this and give the other view of infant baptism. Baptism is an outward sign of the beliver of his acceptance of Christ as his savior. It is an act of obediance, **NOT** a requirement for salvation. The only requirement for salvation is the acceptance of Christ as your savior and the repentance of your sins. As for what happens to a new born baby that is not baptized? NOTHING!!. It is not a requirement for salvation. In all the cases of baptism in the bible, the individuals were baptised **AFTER** they accepted Christ and repented of their sins. (This is diffrent from John's baptism - It was a baptism unto repentance.) Duane L. Rezac -- +-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------+ | Duane L. Rezac |These views are my own, and NOT representitive of my place| | dsacg1!dcscg1!drezac drezac@dcscg1.dcsc.dla.mil of Employment. | +-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (11/06/90)
In article <Oct.28.03.32.00.1990.25051@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: > >To sum up, while I'm sure the Episcopal church requires baptisms to be >performed by a priest ordained by a bishop in the apostolic >succession, I'm also sure that they accept as valid baptisms even >those administered by non-christians. The Episcopal Church's definition of "Christian" is broad enough that I doubt that this question arises very often in practice. Actually, the 1976 prayer book specifically permits baptisms by laymen, going so far as to give an order for the administration of baptism by "any Christian in case of need." In fact, there is a form for conditional baptism of a person who is not sure (or from whom it cannot be ascertained) whether he/she is baptized. It goes something like this: "If you are not already baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." Baptism is the only one of the seven/two (depending on whom you ask) sacramental rites which can be validly administered by a layman, though it is the prerogative of a bishop or priest to officiate when one is present. Confirmation, on the other hand, can only be administered by a bishop, and it is quite common for Episcopalians being confirmed to travel to another parish conveniently close to their own for the confirmation service, since in most dioceses the bishop is only able to visit a given parish once every two or three years. Since the advent of open communion in the Episcopal Church, confirmation is no longer required of communicants; however, it is still practiced for both youth coming of age and for those coming into the EC from other denominations. Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans are excepted, since their previous confirmations are recognized as following in Apostolic Succession. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (11/06/90)
Vincent Paul Mulhern writes: >I know of a police sergeant who is Episcopal, who, at the scene of a nasty >auto accident, "emergency-baptized" a victim who was not expected to live. >Well, the guy did survive and turned out to be Jewish. He got pretty mad >that they had done that to him... I think it's safe to say that this would not be considered a valid baptism. Infant baptism is normally coupled with confirmation or some other ceremonial declaration of one's faith and acceptance by the community as an adult believer. An adult must desire to be baptized. Infants and young children essentially must claim their baptism when they come of age. -- 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."
victor%uunet.UUCP@abvax.icd.ab.com" 3-NOV-1990 19:38:47.76 (11/06/90)
{This is in response to questions about whether Orthodox rebaptize
people who believe Orthodox. A posting from Victor Krawczuk reports
that her sister was rebaptized in going from Baptist to Russian
Orthodox. --clh]
This is just basic Orthodox ecclesiology - the West went into heresy when
they added the Filoque to the Creed about the year 1000AD (there were
other problems too, but i'm unsure of every detail). Therefore there
is no Church in the west, therefore there is no baptism. The Reformation
is not thought of as improving this situation. (i don't think any branch
of the Reformation even addressed the Filioque.)
Since there is no one central authority in Orthodoxy - there is quite a
bit of leeway on how strictly this ecclesiology is enforced in any
particular country and in any Jurisdiction, but i do suspect that in the
case of a Protestant group like the Baptists, even "liberal" Orthodox
Churches would rebaptize. The rationale is that Protestant groups were
founded by people, not Christ, therefore they are not the original Church
and they have no valid Baptism.
ando.
[This comment may be somewhat dated. The mutual anathemas between
Rome and at least some of the Orthodox churches have been retracted.
So I'm not sure Orthodox would now take the line that there's no
Church in the West. However I can see that they might have problems
with Baptists. --clh]wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (11/08/90)
In article <Nov.5.05.19.37.1990.16611@athos.rutgers.edu> garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) writes: > >In all the discussion on baptism, I haven't seen any dialog on the >prerequisite of baptism --repentance. Acts 2:38. I would think that >would have more bearing on an effective baptism than who does it which >is not addressed specifically in Scripture. In Acts 2:38 Peter responds to a crowd of Jews who have heard his Pentecost sermon. They asked "Brothers, what shall we do?" His response is: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven." I don't see here a requirement that one repent prior to Baptism. Repentance is however, a necessary fruit or result of faith. Luther wrote in his Large Catechism: "Here you see that Baptism, both by its power and by its significance, comprehends also the third sacrament, formerly called Penance, which is really nothing else than Baptism. What is repentance but an earnest attack on the old man and an entering upon a new life? If you live in repentance, therefore, you are walking in Baptism, which not only announces this new life but also produces, begins, and promotes it. In Baptism we are given the grace, Spirit, and Power to suppress the old man [i.e., sinful nature] so that the new may come forth and grow strong. Therefore Baptism remains forever. Even though we fall from it and sin, nevertheless we always have access to it so that we may again subdue the old man. But we need not again have the water poured over us. Even if we were immersed in water a hundred times, it would nevertheless be only one Baptism, and the effect and significance of Baptism would remain. Repentance, therefore, is nothing else than a return and approach to Baptism, to resume and practice what had earlier been begun but abandoned." It seems I began this discussion, and in ways it has drifted into areas that to me are not that interesting, e.g., 'who may Baptize, the minister, any christian, anybody, etc.' These are questions of practice, which, though they may be important, can distract us from the important doctrinal questions regarding our understanding of the Sacrament. In a way, the question I would like to ask is almost the same, namely, "Who is it that Baptizes?" The answer that I give, is "God". It is God who Baptizes through the power of his Word. It is God who makes Baptism valid and effective. This was my original point, that Baptism depends not on the faith of the one Baptized, or the authority or faith of the minister, but on God's Word and promise. In particular when the minister uses Christ's words in connection with the physical element(s) in accordance with Christ's command, then we have a valid sacrament. Now then, Charlie Wingate writes: >Vincent Paul Mulhern writes: >>I know of a police sergeant who is Episcopal, who, at the scene of a nasty >>auto accident, "emergency-baptized" a victim who was not expected to live. >>Well, the guy did survive and turned out to be Jewish. He got pretty mad >>that they had done that to him... >I think it's safe to say that this would not be considered a valid baptism. I have to respectfully disagree. Not that I expect this man, who rejects Christ and his Baptism, to be saved. But if he were later to be converted, I would regard his Baptism as valid. Wouldn't his conversion confirm the validity of his Baptism? Doesn't this show the working of the Holy Spirit in him? Not that I endorse (as a matter of practice) Baptizing unbelievers against their will! Although in a sense, when we Baptize infants at their parents' request, we are doing just that. For "the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's Law, nor can it do so." (Romans 8:7). Sorry to be so long-winded. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "If Thy beloved Son, O God, Had not to earth descended And in our mortal flesh and blood, Had not sin's power ended, Then this poor, wretched soul of mine In hell eternally would pine Because of its transgression. All righteousness by works is vain, The Law brings condemnation; True righteousness by faith I gain, Christ's work is my salvation. His death, that perfect sacrifice, Has paid the all-sufficient price; In him my hope is anchored." --Wenn dein herzliebster Sohn, o Gott -- Johann Heerman, 1630. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (11/09/90)
In article <Nov.2.03.04.07.1990.3938@porthos.rutgers.edu>, esaholm@polaris.utu.fi (Esa Holmberg) writes: >farkas%qual@sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: > >>I find it strange that a new born needs baptism! Can someone tell me why? > > Simple: even new born babies share the sin of Adam, and > thus do need baptism.. >-- > _________________________________________________________________________ >( Esa Holmberg, Turku Telephone Company, AXE, Linnankatu 4, 20100 TURKU, ) > ) Finland ! Elisa: Holmberg Esa TT (tt) ! fax +358 21 502 298 / >( Internet: esaholm@utu.fi, esa.holmberg/o=tt/@elisa.fi / There are no recorded children baptisms in the Bible. If I read it correctly, baptism is unto repentence. A baby has no capacity to repent. In fact, I don't believe that babies have the capacity to sin. As far as the original sin is concerned, Jesus has atoned for that. We will not be judged by the sins of our parents, but by the sins our own self committed. Christ has atoned for those also, however, his atonement for our own sins is effective only upon the condition of repentance. This is the reason baptism should only be administered to a fully repented person. I suggest that baby baptism is a false concept. With brotherly love, Frank
walsh@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (11/09/90)
In article <1865.2736ebd7@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, walsh@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: > > Another interesting difference is the RC view that once you are made > a priest, you are a priest forever and you can (if you're a bishop) > keep making valid priests and you have a chain of grace intact from > Christ, even if you're in heresy. > The Orthodox view is that if a priest or bishop goes into > heresy, they loose their membership in the Church, and anyone they > ordain or baptize is bogus. Therefore, RC's would admit valid > baptism and orders among the Orthodox, but it wouldn't work the > other way around. > > ando. in a separate message, our moderator wondered whether this view of breaking the chain of priesthood in a heretical priest or bishop would fall under the heresy of Donatism. Since our emailer at this site is eratic, i'll answer with a post. every definition of Donatism i've ever seen defines it as linking the personal holiness or sanctity of a priest or bishop with the efficacy of his office. Donatists believe that if a priest leads a sinful life (e.g. isn't faithful to a vow of chastity) then he isn't a priest. The Church rejected this because a) we're all sinful to some extant and b) you'd never know who was a real priest and who wasn't. The orthodoxy of faith is separate from your morals and has nothing to do with Donatism. If a bishop OPENLY preaches, for example, that Christ is a reincarnation of Krishna and that Mohammed is Christ, he is outside of recognizable Christianity and outside the Church. If he ordains priests from that point, those priest are bogus. (of course there's probably more to it, maybe he'd have to be given a chance to come to his senses, etc). This, i believe, is a basic difference between Orthodox and Roman Cath. teaching on the priesthood. Catholics (according to my understanding) believe that no matter what a priest or bishop does or believes or preaches, he is always has the grace of his office to some extent. ando.
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (11/12/90)
ando wrote:
his senses, etc). This, i believe, is a basic difference between
Orthodox and Roman Cath. teaching on the priesthood. Catholics
(according to my understanding) believe that no matter what a priest
or bishop does or believes or preaches, he is always has the grace
of his office to some extent.
Catholics believe that the Sacrament of Holy Order changes the
recipient's soul in a way that is permanent. It's called the
"character" of the Sacrament.
Conferring valid orders involves other things besides the episcopal
character, though.
Presumably, a man who believes in Krishna no longer believes in the
Christian priesthood, so certainly cannot form the intention to ordain a
Catholic priest. And thus cannot ordain.
Joe Buehler
[I had thought that intent was interpreted in a "formal" sense in the
Catholic tradition. If you say that those with an incorrect
understanding of the sacrament cannot have the correct intent, then
you raise serious doubt about the validity of many American Catholic
sacraments, since the clergy and bishops in this country manifestly do
not all have the same understanding of sacraments, and thus at least
some of them must be wrong. And how about corrupt church officials,
who do not really believe in the faith but continue to function? This
is precisely the problem that came up in the Donatist controversy: if
validity depends upon the interior state of the minister, then it
becomes impossible for anyone to know whether they have been validly
baptized, etc. (I mention only the practical issues -- there are also
theological ones.) As I understand it, "intent" is designed primarily
to make sure that it is actually a Catholic sacrament being performed,
and not e.g. words in a play or in some foreign ecclesiastical
context. I agree that repeating the baptismal formula in a Hindu
worship context, even if done by an ordained Christian clergyman, does
not constitute a Christian act. But if done in the context of
Christian worship, and it happens that the person has secretly become
a Hindu (one supposes that if he were openly so, no Christian body
would allow him as a worship leader), I believe the act is still
Christian. --clh]jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (11/12/90)
Frank wrote:
There are no recorded children baptisms in the Bible. If I read it
correctly, baptism is unto repentence. A baby has no capacity to repent.
In fact, I don't believe that babies have the capacity to sin. As far as
the original sin is concerned, Jesus has atoned for that. We will not
be judged by the sins of our parents, but by the sins our own self committed.
Christ has atoned for those also, however, his atonement for our own sins
is effective only upon the condition of repentance. This is the reason
baptism should only be administered to a fully repented person.
I suggest that baby baptism is a false concept.
Historical evidence suggests that infants have always been baptized,
from the very beginning of Christianity. A short search didn't show up
anyone who denied the efficacy of infant baptism until the Reformation.
Its efficacy came under attack in the Reformation because it is
incompatible with Luther's doctrine of justification.
In Scripture, there are several passages of interest on the subject.
Here are two points:
- There are several mentions of the baptism of a whole "household". I
Cor. 1:16, for example.
- Circumcision, according to St. Paul, has been replaced by Baptism
(Col. 2). Circumcision was definitely for infants.
Here are a couple examples of the historical kind:
- St. Polycarp of Smyrna said, shortly before his martyrdom, "86 years
have I served him [Christ]." (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9:3). From the
date of his martyrdom, it follows that he was baptised around the year
70 as a child. (St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, if
you're not up on your church history.)
- The Apostolic Tradition, by St. Hippolytus of Rome, 215 AD or so,
gives a description of the early Baptism ceremony. It includes the
Baptism of infants. (This document makes for interesting reading. It
is one of the two most important extra-Scriptural things written in the
early Church on the liturgy and the organization of the Church.)
- a Carthaginian synod under St. Cyprian, held in 251 or 253,
disapproved the postponement of Baptism for children under the age of 8.
(It may be 8 days, my sources are in conflict.)
- The Catholic Encyclopedia attributes the following to St. Augustine on
the subject of infant baptism (sermon 11): "This the Church always had,
always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she
perseveringly guards to the end." It sound like something he might
write, but I haven't been able to check the authenticity against another
source.
Joe Buehler
[Your reference to Luther's theory of justification suggests that
Luther opposed infant baptism. He did not, and in his later life he
persecuted those who did. The actual issue was not justification, but
the nature of the Church. The early Reformers, both Lutheran and
Reformed, still had the idea of a Church that included everyone. The
radical end of the Reformation believed in the "gathered Church".
They rejected the concept that an entire town could be Christian.
Christians were a small (usually persecuted) minority called out of
the people as a whole. The conventional Church (particularly in the
Reformed tradition) was based on the OT concept of a covenant between
God and a people. Children were part of this covenant from birth.
Thus infant baptism. The gathered Church was an attempt to maintain
the integrity of the Church by admitting only those who had made a
personal commitment. It took seriously Paul's contrast between
circumcision of the flesh and of the heart, and concluded that
participation in the Church, and baptism, should be based on
circumcision of the heart. Modern Protestant churches generally use
ideas from both of these traditions. --clh]mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (11/13/90)
Jeff Carroll writes: >Baptism is the only one of the seven/two (depending on whom you ask) >sacramental rites which can be validly administered by a layman[.] Actually, this isn't so. Of the sacraments, ordination, eucharist, anointing the sick (aka Unction) and confirmation are reserved for priests and bishops. Reconcilation (aka confession) can done by a layperson in a modified form, baptism may be done by any christian, and marriage may be done by anyone (although the blessing may be given only by a preist or bishop, and a marriage in the church may be performed only by ordained clergy). -- 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."
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (11/13/90)
SomeOne writes: >I don't think any branch of the Reformation even addressed the Filioque. Not too long about (I think it was in the early '80s) the Episcopal Church considered dropping it. I'm pretty sure that the issue was done in by the still-ongoing furor over women's ordination/consecration, sexuality, etc. -- 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."
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (11/13/90)
I wrote, regarding the baptism of infants:
Its efficacy came under attack in the Reformation because it is
incompatible with Luther's doctrine of justification.
And the moderator replied:
Your reference to Luther's theory of justification suggests that
Luther opposed infant baptism. He did not, and in his later life he
persecuted those who did.
All of which is, of course, true.
The actual issue was not justification, but the nature of the
Church.
I disagree. The differences on the Church are a result of the doctrine
on grace, but the efficacy of infant Baptism I think definitely tied to
Luther's doctrine of justification.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states that Luther, attempting to keep the
traditional practice, suggested a miraculous act of faith on the part of
the infants being baptized.
I don't see what else he could have suggested if he wanted to keep the
practice, and his doctrine of justification. Catholics baptize babies
because they believe that they are thereby justified. But as far as I
can see, Luther's theory of justification requires an act of the will
that a baby can't make without positing a specially miraculous
intervention on God's part.
Joe Buehler
[I took a look at Luther's statements in the Large and Small
Catechisms and the Babylonian Captivity. He does not require faith as
a prerequisite to baptism. Rather, faith is necessary to benefit from
the baptism. Baptism is a visible presentation of the Word. Its
validity comes directly from the Word, and is not dependent upon our
reception of it. However we need faith in order for it to justify us.
"baptism is simply water and God's Word in and with each other: that
is, when the Word accompanies the water, baptism is rightly
administered although faith be not present; for faith does not
constitute baptism, it receives it. ... it is not bound to our faith,
but to the Word of God." He does imply couple of places that he
thinks infants can in some way believe, but does not develop that
idea. As to the question of whether baptism actually confers grace as
well as symbolizing it, there is in the discussion in the Large
Catechism suggestions of this, but not a very clear presentation. For
Luther the Word calls forth faith. If you take seriously the concept
that the Word is present in baptism, then you can see that baptism is
more than just a sign. This is suggested by his statement "Thus we
see what a splendid thing baptism is, which rescues us from the very
jaws of the devil, makes us God's own children, overcomes and takes
away sin, daily strengthens the new man in us, and always continues
with us until, snatched from the misery of the present, we shall have
attained to the eternal glory beyond."
In the Babylonian Captivity, he comments that infants are aided by the
faith of others, namely those that bring him to baptism. He says this
is a general belief. A footnote (not from Luther) cites Aquinas,
Augustine, and Clement V. However the Babylonian Captivity is a
fairly early writing, and I'm not sure he continued to hold this
belief.
--clh]jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (11/13/90)
Some comments on Donatism and sacramental intent. Donatism denies the validity of the sacraments conferred by a man in a state of mortal sin -- i.e., not "justified". This idea was condemned in the 4th century. It leads to insuperable problems regarding the visibility of the Church, because it is impossible to judge who's in a state of grace and who isn't, and thus whose Holy Orders are valid, and whose aren't, etc. The doctrine on intention when conferring a Sacrament is somewhat different. The minister has to have the intention to confer a Sacrament in order for it to be actually conferred. Valid intent can take various forms, which I will not even attempt to go into. But, I suppose the main point is that, if, say, a bishop went through the motions of ordaining a priest, but withheld his intent to confer orders, he wouldn't confer orders. Without external manifestation, internal intent is impossible to judge, of course, so the Church undoubtedly recognizes one's Catholic orders, confirmation, etc. unless there is decidedly good reason not to. I remember reading someone who expressed the opinion that the Vatican II liturgical changes may bring about invalid Masses because they have weakened the expression of the intent of the Mass significantly. It is a problem when a priest thinks of the Mass as a meal but not the Sacrifice of Calvary. I wouldn't venture to say exactly when such a priest stops saying Mass, but eventually a point must be reached, it would seem to me, because at some point his Faith will be gone, and he'll be thinking totally in terms of bread and wine, and not the Body and Blood. Joe Buehler
walsh@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (11/17/90)
In article <Nov.13.05.10.33.1990.1460@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: > Some comments on Donatism and sacramental intent. > > > I remember reading someone who expressed the opinion that the Vatican II > liturgical changes may bring about invalid Masses because they have > weakened the expression of the intent of the Mass significantly. It is > a problem when a priest thinks of the Mass as a meal but not the > Sacrifice of Calvary. I wouldn't venture to say exactly when such a > priest stops saying Mass, but eventually a point must be reached, it > would seem to me, because at some point his Faith will be gone, and > he'll be thinking totally in terms of bread and wine, and not the Body > and Blood. > > Joe Buehler i am no expert on RC theology, but the problem remains: if intention on the part of the priest or bishop is part of any sacrament, you'll never really know for sure whether that sacrament was effective. what, if during one of the low points of the Roman church there was an unbelieving Pope. Without the proper intention, all the priests or bishops he ordained would be bogus. This leads to a horrible mess in the drawing the boundries and limits of your church. strikes me as Roman legalism run amuck. it reminds me of the story of the nuns in California who made communion wafers out of rice flour because they came out whiter. when the local bishop found out, the priests of the diocese had to do a couple hundred masses all over again because without wheat, the mass doesn't work. as for your Vacuum II comments, i think they are right to the point. the basic tenets of Catholic faith seem to be up for grab (at least in the US -- i understand the wreckage hasn't been so great in other countries). If you compare vital belief (such as the nature of the Mass) both before and after VatII, you find a lost continuity, which brings in doubt the very nature of the Roman Church, which maintains that it is the guardian of the "unchanging" truths of Christianity. ando. [Weren't you the one that was arguing that someone who is not orthodox is outside the Christian faith and his sacraments are invalid? Perhaps Joe's correct intention is different from your orthodoxy, but it seems to me that they are closely related. --clh]
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (11/20/90)
In article <Nov.13.05.09.45.1990.1448@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >The Catholic Encyclopedia states that Luther, attempting to keep the >traditional practice, suggested a miraculous act of faith on the part of >the infants being baptized. The Catholic Encyclopedia can say what it pleases, but it hardly seems like a good source for understanding Luther or Lutherans. I don't think the Lutheran Confessions speak of an 'act of faith' with regard to Baptism, or conversion. But the Bible clearly teaches that faith is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8,9). The working of faith in the unbeliever is described in miraculous terms : 'You were dead in your transgressions and sins,..God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in our transgressions.' (Ephesians 2:1-5) I don't see how the working of faith in an infant is any less miraculous than the working of faith in an adult. >But as far as I >can see, Luther's theory of justification requires an act of the will >that a baby can't make without positing a specially miraculous >intervention on God's part. The trouble is, that you are superimposing Catholic synergism on the Bible's doctrine of justification. I can see why you arrive at some kind of contradiction that way. But the Bible does not contradict itself. I thank the moderator for his quotes from Luther and his comments thereon. I don't want to argue about what Luther said, but I certainly believe that Baptism works faith, even in infants. That it has the power to do this is indicated in 1 Peter 3:21, Ephesians 5:25,26, and Titus 3:5, which I quoted in another article. In an article on this subject in the most recent Northwestern Lutheran, Professor Richard Balge of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary comments, "I would rather have to explain to God why I have baptized infants than why I have not." Our moderator commented: >If you take seriously the concept >that the Word is present in baptism, then you can see that baptism is >more than just a sign. Anybody can see that the Word is present in baptism when the Word is preached at the Baptism, and particularly when the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19) are spoken. Similarly the Word is present in the Lord's Supper when the minister repeats Christ's words of institution, "This is my body,...Drink from it, all of you, this is my blood," (Matt. 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:17-20, 1 Cor 11:23-25) This is not a superstitious incantation, but when Christ's words are used in accordance with his command, with the physical elements he used (water, bread, wine) then by the power of his word, we have a valid sacrament. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are discaimed by The University of Houston.
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (11/21/90)
ando wrote:
i am no expert on RC theology, but the problem remains: if intention
on the part of the priest or bishop is part of any sacrament, you'll
never really know for sure whether that sacrament was effective.
If you mean with the certainty of Faith, of course not. There are very
few things you can know with *that* certainty.
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!
what, if during one of the low points of the Roman church there was
an unbelieving Pope. Without the proper intention, all the priests or
bishops he ordained would be bogus. This leads to a horrible mess in
the drawing the boundries and limits of your church. strikes me as
Roman legalism run amuck.
There have been some real swine on the Papal throne, no question. There
was one pope who toasted the Devil! I think you would be hard put to
find one who was an unbeliever, though.
It isn't hard to have the proper intention. Basically, you have to
intend to do what the Church does. Intention to do what the Church does
is presumed unless you do things like significantly alter the matter
and/or form of the Sacrament with the obvious intent of denying Catholic
doctrine.
This requires a more detailed treatment than I am competent to give, so
please refer to something like the Catholic Encyclopedia if you want to
really understand this.
In the final analysis, the passing on of Holy Orders is under the
guidance of the Holy Ghost, so the Church isn't about to lose its Holy
Orders.
it reminds me of the story of the nuns in California who made communion
wafers out of rice flour because they came out whiter. when the local
bishop found out, the priests of the diocese had to do a couple hundred
masses all over again because without wheat, the mass doesn't work.
I hope that's just a story. But worse things than that have happened in
the last 25 years!
as for your Vacuum II comments, i think they are right to the point.
the basic tenets of Catholic faith seem to be up for grab (at least
in the US -- i understand the wreckage hasn't been so great in other
countries). If you compare vital belief (such as the nature of the Mass)
both before and after VatII, you find a lost continuity, which brings
in doubt the very nature of the Roman Church, which maintains that it
is the guardian of the "unchanging" truths of Christianity.
There's no question that there has been mass apostasy on a world-wide
scale. And I do mean apostasy. If I had the opportunity to talk to
some bishops, I would first ask them whether they even believe in God!
That doesn't say anything about the nature of the Church, though. Whole
nations have been cut off from the Church in the past, and no doubt will
be in the future. Should the American bishops decide to go that route,
I wouldn't be particularly surprised. Our Lord Himself put it this way:
When the Son of Man comes will He find Faith on the earth?
The standard Catholic doctrine of the last times, which is basically an
interpretation of the New Testament going back at least to the Fathers
of the Church, includes mass apostasy on the part of Christians. Just
before the Jews convert, and all the rest.
We've argued about the issues involved here before. What is the
Catholic religion? Is it what your parish priest says it is? Is it
what you think it is? Is it what Hans Kueng thinks it is? Is it what
the American bishops say it is?
Most Catholics don't know how to answer such questions, because they are
VERY ignorant of their religion. It's a pity, too, because it's
culpable ignorance in many cases. You might expect ignorance in a
society where people are struggling to survive. But in America, where
we have the easy life, Catholic libraries everywhere, plenty of free
time?
"Wisdom does not abound in the land of delights."
Joe Buehlerjhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (11/23/90)
David Wagner wrote: I don't see how the working of faith in an infant is any less miraculous than the working of faith in an adult. For Luther's sort of faith to be in an infant requires something specially miraculous because infants don't have the use of their reason. An adult has this capability, an infant does not. If trusting "faith" in Christ is what justifies, there is certainly something miraculous about an infant having this trust in Christ. I thus think infant Baptism is totally incompatible with Luther's ideas about justification. Joe Buehler
garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (11/23/90)
In article <Nov.19.23.39.25.1990.24675@athos.rutgers.edu> wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >In article <Nov.13.05.09.45.1990.1448@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >I thank the moderator for his quotes from Luther and his comments >thereon. I don't want to argue about what Luther said, but I >certainly believe that Baptism works faith, even in infants. >That it has the power to do this is indicated in 1 Peter 3:21, Ephesians >5:25,26, and Titus 3:5, which I quoted in another article. Am I hearing you right in saying that baptism is a ticket into heaven? That regardless of a persons condition and position with Christ, that by act of baptism the person is justified? That by simply quoting some Scripture and splashing some water, that faith is produced and sins are washed away? Even the verses you mentioned above don't state that. Have you differentiated between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism? Doesn't your assertion that baptism saves put it on the same plain as works? Something that man can do to enter heaven aside from accepting the atoning work of Jesus? I am quite sure that I, a born again Bible believing Christian who has baptised others, could take an ordinary non-believer and soak him in the ocean saying a few verses over him and come up with a perfectly wet sinner. I agree with you on a lot of things, David, but this one I am having trouble with. Gary Hipp [I don't know what David is saying, but Luther certainly did not say that. He made it clear that someone who had been baptized and did not believe was not saved. It was Luther's view that baptism, because it embodied the Word, was capable of calling forth faith. But not that it always did so. --clh]
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (11/26/90)
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."
lieuwen@mycella.cs.wisc.edu (Dan Lieuwen) (11/29/90)
!!4) People suffer because they are people. !! !!Suffering is simply one of the phenomena we experience as human beings !!equipped with the given sensory, motor, and cognitive facilities. !!Consider suffering as an experience with a strong negative affect, not !!unlike a burn on the skin. Does it not seem reasonable that Adam/Eve !!(pre-fall) were capable of experiencing this type of pain? Then why not !!the suffering type? One might just as well ask the question, "why do !!people laugh?" or "why is an orgasm pleasurable?". These are states, or !!experiences, with a stong positive affect. !! !!> In general I would agree that the fact that some people suffer and !!> others do not is unjust. !! !!I would not agree. Is it unjust that I am 6'5" and most men are 5'10" !!or so? Did God intend a race of clones? I don't think so (based upon !!a line of reasoning I'd be happy to share if anyone seriously thinks !!that it is a possibility). Is it just (fair) that some people laugh !!more than others? Suffering and height are incomparable differences. To experience PAIN was probably possible in the pre-fall world because pain has certain useful functions--like keeping you from doing damage to your body. Anything physical can (probably) be harmed. In the fallen world much of the suffering is unjust because it arises out of unjust situations. Political and economic oppression contribute much to the sum total of human misery. Forms of suffering other than useful pain strike me as incompatable with a perfect world as they would serve no useful purpose in such a world. People can become closer to God through suffering (so suffering does serve a useful purpose sometimes) in our world--but that would be unnecessary in an unfallen world. Dan -- --Dan
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (11/30/90)
In article <Nov.23.02.22.06.1990.20264@athos.rutgers.edu> garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) writes: > >Am I hearing you right in saying that baptism is a ticket into >heaven? That regardless of a persons condition and position with >Christ, that by act of baptism the person is justified? That by >simply quoting some Scripture and splashing some water, that faith is >produced and sins are washed away? 1. I did not say that baptism justifies. All people are justified by Christ's life, death and resurrection. We are all offered this justification as a free gift (Ephesians 2:8,9) Christian receive justification by faith. Baptism is not the ticket to heaven, it is a means of receiving the ticket, which is offered as a free gift. 2. I do believe it is possible for a person to reject his or her baptism. Some baptized infants do this (at what point in life we don't know) and some baptized as adults do this. I suppose if you baptize someone who willfully rejects it, then they do not receive the benefits of baptism. That one can resist the Spirit is plainly shown in Stephen's words to the Jews: "You always resist the Holy Spirit." >Even the verses you mentioned above don't state that. I'm not sure what you mean by 'that'. I referred to those passages to show that baptism has the power to wash sins away and work regeneration. That is clear from the passages. How it does this is indeed a matter of theology. I presume you would agree that this power does not derive from the water. > Have you >differentiated between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and water >baptism? The church confesses "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" (Nicene Creed) Christians practice only one baptism, baptism with water "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" In this baptism we are born of water and the Spirit [see below], we are 'born again' >Doesn't your assertion that baptism saves put it on the same >plain as works? Something that man can do to enter heaven aside from >accepting the atoning work of Jesus? I have been very consistent in saying that baptism is God's work, not ours. See my comments on Colossians 2:11, below. >I am quite sure that I, a born again Bible believing Christian who has >baptised others, could take an ordinary non-believer and soak him in >the ocean saying a few verses over him and come up with a perfectly >wet sinner. I pray that pride in being born again does not make you into a Pharisee. I caution you that being born again is the result of God's work, it is no work of yours. I furthermore pray that you will understand that God can take an unbelieving baby, sprinkle a little water on him, say a few words, and make a christian out of him. He might even have a better chance with the baby than with a heart-hardened adult. >I agree with you on a lot of things, David, but this one I am having >trouble with. > >Gary Hipp Sorry to trouble you. Read some more: In article <Nov.27.04.00.39.1990.23301@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >We need to stop and think how our theology >reflects back on the character of God. One may ask, what kind of God is it >which would condemn an infant because the negligence of perents or because >of where the baby was born. Even if we believe that an infant which received >no baptism can be saved, doesn't resolve the problem, because it was clearly >indicated that baptism will provide an advantage to the infant. Meaning, >that if there is two infants, one which received baptism and the other >didn't, the one which did would be better off. A god which would set such >laws would be no God at all. Infants can't sin and they are not responsible >for their actions. They have no control over what their parents are, or what >their parents will do or not do. > You are setting yourself up as a judge over God here. I don't recommend it! By baptizing infants we confess, in particular, that they need God's salvation. Apart from God's baptism, they stand as condemned sinners. Here are a few scripture passages on that topic: Psalm 51:5: "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, from the time my mother conceived me." Genesis 8:21: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood." John 3:5: "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You must not be surprised at my saying, 'you must be born again.' This last passage, connecting baptism (born of water) with being 'born again' is interesting. It is very helpful to compare this with Ephesians 2, which speaks of our being 'dead in our transgressions and sins' before conversion, but being 'made alive in Christ' after. Those who have only experienced physical birth are still 'dead' in their transgressions in sins; they are not yet born of the Spirit. Christ is very clear on this point. But in Baptism, even infants are 'born of the Spirit', or born again. That this is true is apparent in the many Christians whose doctrine and lives have clearly shown that they have received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Reference was made in an earlier article to the Council of Carthage. The question before this council was not whether or not to baptize infants. It was whether infants could be baptized before the eighth day. The reference to circumcision is clear, as is the obvious danger of legalism. But the Council managed to avoid legalism: they declared that Baptism should be denied to no human being from birth. Other items of history that have been previously posted simply show that infant baptism was the practice in the church from its infancy. If this had not been the case, there would have been a glorious fight over whether or not to baptize infants. But we have no history of such an event. [My source on this is Kretzman's 'Popular Commentary', New Testament, Vol I, p. 162-163. I frankly don't know where to look for 'original sources' regarding the Council of Carthage, nor to I have time to find them.] >We have no recorded child baptism in the Bible at all. This is for a very >good reason. For baptism is unto repentance, and infants have nothing to >repent of. > >Matt 3:8 >"Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance:" > >Matt 3:11 >"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance..." None of these make repentance a prior requirement for baptism. Indeed repentance is a result of baptism -- which does not say that it cannot happen as a result of faith, but prior to baptism. >One must be of an age of accountability before baptism becomes a >requirement. This is not found anywhere in the Scripture. On the other hand, Baptism is clearly connected with circumcision in Colossians 2:11:12: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." This is a wonderful passage, because it not only connects baptism with circumcision, which was performed on eight day old males, but it tells us that Baptism replaces circumcision, or in fact *is* circumcision, as a means of making a person a part of God's covenant. It further tells us that it is Christ who baptizes us, not just men, so that Baptism is no empty sign but has the power of God behind it. Finally it also describes Baptism (and/or conversion) as a resurrection, consistent with the rest of scripture. (See John 3:5, above) What is the 'first resurrection' of Rev. 20? A rapture? No! It is Baptism, or conversion. "Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God (cf. 1 Peter 2:9) and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." Rev. 20:6 These are strong words of comfort to people under persecution! You are reigning with Christ, and will continue to do so even after you die, until the Day of Judgement comes when you will inherit the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world (Matt 25:34). > Baptism for the thief is in fact a requirement for his >salvation. The idea that the thief went to heaven is false. The scripture >tells us that Jesus didn't go to "heaven". This is what Jesus said following >the resurrection: > >John 20:16 >"Jesus answered her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: >but go to my bretheren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your >Father; and to my God, and your God." Jesus had not yet ascended bodily to his Father in heaven. But where do you think his imperishable, fully divine spirit went between his death and the resurrection of his body? Do you think he spent three days in hell? But Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43. You seem to have a very strange idea of what 'paradise' means. I admit that the business of what happened to Jesus between his death and resurrection is difficult, especially his 'preaching to the spirits in prison' (1 Peter 3:19). But you are the first person who has told me that the thief was not saved. Frankly I do not think you are coming close to understanding the Scriptures. The best I can make out of this, is that after his death, his imperishable Spirit went to heaven (with the soul of the thief). He was made alive by the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18) and somehow also raised himself from the dead (John 2:19 : "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.", then descended bodily into hell and preached to the spirits in prison. This was a preaching of judgement and victory, not the saving Gospel (there are no 'second chances' after death, for salvation). He then appeared to the women at the tomb, and later to Peter and the other disciples. Later he was seen bodily ascending into heaven -- giving us assurance that we too, will someday be bodily resurrected and live with new, transformed bodies with God on a new earth for eternity. > >I believe that you would expect to find the thief where Jesus went "today". >Peter tells us where Jesus went following his death and before his >resurrection: > >I Peter 3:18-19 >"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that >that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but >quickened by the Spirit:" >"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;" > >I Peter 4:6 >"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that >they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to >God in the spirit." > >The thief went into the spirit world to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. I admit, this almost had me stumped. But it is a mistake to connect 1 Peter 4:6 with 1 Peter 3:19. First, he says, 'the gospel *was* preached even to those who *are* now dead'. It does not say they were physically dead when they heard the gospel. If we look at the context of 4:6 we see that Peter is talking to Christians, urging them to lead sanctified lives in an evil world. He comforts them with the message that the immoral unbelievers around them will be judged, they 'will have to give an account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead'. But perhaps they have doubts about their faith and their savior, for some who believed in the promise of eternal life have died. So he tells them that these Christians received the gospel so that they 'might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.' Unless the Day of Judgement comes first, we all die, we are 'judged according to men in regard to the body'. But our spirits will live with God in heaven. On Judgement day our spirits will be reunited with our new bodies, which will be our own flesh (Job 19) but transformed and perfect, just as Christ's resurrected body was. > >I Corint 15:29 >"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise >not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" Paul here uses one kind of erroneous practice to make fun of false doctrine concerning Christ's resurrection. Surely it makes more sense to baptize infants, who are physically alive but spiritually dead, than it does to baptize those who are completely dead, and have neglected to make good use of their time of grace. > Our moderator writes: >[By the way, it seems a failure of Christian charity to use the >inflammatory label "teachings of men" for practices that have a >reasonable argument for being Biblical -- even if you don't agree with >the argument. Since rites such as baptism do not seem to be >essentials for salvation, perhaps we should practice the sort of >tolerance suggested in Rom 14: 1-6 towards those who believe they are >called to do things differently than we do. > >--clh] I agree that we should try to be civil to one another. However Romans 14 is about tolerance regarding adiaphora (things indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden by God), not tolerance regarding things clearly taught in Scripture, that is, doctrine. Paul makes this clear in the very same letter, in Romans 16:17-18: "I urge you brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people." Sorry for being so long winded. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "Wake, awake, for night is flying," The watchmen on the heights are crying; "Awake Jerusalem, arise!" Midnight hears the welcome voices And at the thrilling cry rejoices: "Oh where are ye, ye virgins wise? The Bridegroom comes, awake! Your lamps with gladness take! Hallelujah! With bridal care Yourselves prepare To meet the Bridegroom who is near." --"Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme" v. 1 --Philipp Nicolai, 1599 --from 'The Lutheran Hymnal', #609. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [Unfortunately the Greek of I Pet 4:6 does not quite suggest the distinction that you are relying on in the English translation. Literally it is simply "the gospel was preached to the dead". There's no "them that are dead", just one word, "dead", whose grammatical case implies "to the". The UBS 2nd edition doesn't show any textual questions in this area, so it looks like a simple mistranslation. --clh]