Lutheran Scholars Answer: Is It a Baptism Or Not

By: Rev. Jack Cascione
The question is why a correctly spoken baptism may not be a valid baptism.
The Reclaim News Article titled, "Is It A Baptism Or Not" generated a number
of questions about the decision to "rebaptize" a baby this coming Sunday.

The baby was baptized by a chaplain at a hospital.  The chaplain did not
confess any creed or any denominational affiliation and issued the baptismal
certificate in the name of the hospital.

This writer's position is that there are so-called churches like Mormons,
Christian Scientists, Unity, and countless nondenominational community
churches that practice a false baptism.  Their members are not actually
baptized even if the pastor baptizes them in the name of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Ghost, because their congregations deny or refuse to
confess the correct teaching about the Trinity.

All people who are baptized in churches that reject or do not correcly
confess the Trinity must seek true Baptism in a true church or face eternal
damnation.  The correct sound of the words in a Baptism are not enough to
make a Baptism valid.  The congregation must also confess the correct
meaning of the words of Baptism.

Baptism is not about the pastor, but the pastor's public confession.  If I,
as a Lutheran pastor, baptized a person in a Mormon or Christian Scientist
Church without first publicly stating why the teaching of the Mormons or
Christian Scientists was in error, that person would not be baptized because
the Confession of the Church officially denies the meaning of the words of
Baptism.  The validity of the Baptism does not depend upon the pastor but on
the correct confession of the words of Baptism by the congregation.

The following are quotations on the Subject from Fritz, Pieper, Walther, and
Luther.

"It is true, neither the faith nor the good and right intention of the
person baptizing or of the person to be baptized constitute the essence of
the Sacrament of Baptism, Rom. 3:3, but on the Word of God and water:
(Accedat Verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. Augustine, Tract.80 in
Ioh.) This, however, does not go to say that whenever the baptismal formula
("I baptize thee in the name of, " etc.) is used and water has been applied,
there has been a true Baptism: for not the mere sound of the words contained
in Scripture constitutes God's Word, but the meaning expressed by such
words.  If the sound of the words were necessary, then only the original
Hebrew and Greek would be God's Word and not a translation.  But while, on
the one hand, a correct translation of the Bible is God's Word because it
rightly gives the meaning of the original text; on the other hand any use of
Biblical word or phrases which is not intended to convey the original
meaning is not God's Word.  Articulated sounds have no meaning in
themselves, but only inasmuch as a certain definite meaning has been
established by their usage in a certain language, among certain people, in
their relation to other words, etc.  The Latin words "laus, nec, sed, sic,
sol", have an altogether different meaning from words in the English
language sounding similarly; English words have an altogether different
meaning in one country or part of a country than they have in another or at
one time than they have at another.  If, therefore, a false teacher, as, for
instance a Unitarian or any one denying the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and
representing the false teachings of his entire congregation or such-body,
uses the baptismal formula exactly as Christ has spoken it, yet, because he
and his Church deny Christ's very meaning of those words, he is not
administering the Sacrament of Baptism; for he is neither observing Christ's
command nor using His Word.  Anyone who has been thus "baptized" is
unbaptized and needs to be baptized.  "  (John Fritz,  "Pastoral Theology"
CPH, 1932, p. 106-107.  The same quotation is also found in "Christian
Dogmatics," Pieper, Vol. III Page 262)

"Various reasons have been adduced why a Unitarian 'Baptism' might possibly
be a true Baptism, particularly if the Christian parents unwittingly have
their child baptized by a Unitarian.  But to rely on possibilities here will
not do.  Baptism is too serious a matter.  It is intended for practical use.
A Christian desires to derive comfort from his Baptism, but he can do so
only if his Baptism is not in doubt.  At best a Baptism administered by
Unitarians, also in the instance assumed, is an uncertain Baptism.  All
uncertain Baptisms, however, must be held to be invalid.  In the nature of
the case, any uncertainty as to the fact of my Baptism makes its consolatory
use impossible for me."  (Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics CPH, St.
Louis, MO 1953 Vol. III p. 263)

"If, however, it has become evident that a certain pastor does not believe
in the doctrine of the Trinity, while his congregation, according to its own
confessions, does so, a baptism performed by such a pastor, representing his
Christian congregation, is of course valid." (John Fritz, "Pastoral
Theology" CPH, 1932, p. 107.)

"The situation is analogous to the Unitarian Baptism. As the Unitarians do
not baptize with the Baptism of Christ because they publicly renounce the
meaning of Christ's words of institution, though they retain the external
sound of these words, so, too, the Reformed do not administer the Supper of
Christ because they publicly renounce the meaning of Christ's words of
institution, though they retain the external sound of these words." (Francis
Pieper, Christian Dogmatics CPH, St. Louis, MO 1953 Vol. III p. 371)

April 1, 2003