By this line of reasoning then someone could go up to people and offer them £10 if they agteed to be 'baptised' in the local swimming baths and that would be considered a valid baptism.
On another thread there was a comment about repeated baptisms in some US Baptist circles being unorthodox.
This doesn't sound very orthodox to me either. If anything, far less so as whatever those Baptists believe they are doing by getting baptised again when they move to another church, they are at least expressing faith in some way.
Incidentally, I've never heard of any UK Baptists doing that.
I knew one woman who was baptised again in her 20s because she didn't believe she'd understood what she was doing when she was baptised as a teenager - she felt she'd been baptised into church membership rather than baptised into Christ.
Whatever the case, I don't think I've ever heard anyone from any Christian tradition say that a 'play-acting' baptism would be valid.
I'm prepared to stand corrected but it sounds like a very 'mechanical' view of baptism to me, far more so than anything I've heard of in RC or Orthodox circles and we are sometimes accused of taking either a rather 'mechanistic' or 'magical' approach to the sacraments.
I'm pretty nonplussed and am now wondering what there is in Lutheran theology that would justify such a thing. It seems counter-intuitive to me as I would have assumed that the Lutheran emphasis on faith rather than works would preclude this approach as there's clearly no faith involved whatsoever.
I can understand this to an extent given the Lutheran emphasis on God saving us, not we ourselves. Baptism then is essentially God's action and not ours - so in that sense God works through the 'action' of baptism irrespective of whether there is any faith or intentionality involved.
Would that be the line of reasoning?
If so, would Lutherans consider Charlemagne enforcing baptism on defeated pagans at sword point an acceptable strategy?
I'm confused.
Many years ago I seem to remember a Reformed critique of Lutheranism that effectively said, 'We Calvinists get accused of determinism. Listen, we've got nothing on these guys ...'
I'm not au fait enough with Reformed or Lutheran theology to say whether the critique was fair or not.
Many years ago I seem to remember a Reformed critique of Lutheranism that effectively said, 'We Calvinists get accused of determinism. Listen, we've got nothing on these guys ...'
I'm not au fait enough with Reformed or Lutheran theology to say whether the critique was fair or not.
Then what is added by bringing it up?
@Lamb Chopped, I’m afraid you’ve gotten me curious. (I don’t shock easily, but I’m very easily made curious. )
From the Lutheran perspective you’ve described, would the same principle hold for the Eucharist? That is to say, if in a play or movie, someone took bread and wine and said the Verba, would that be a valid Eucharist from the Lutheran perspective you’re describing?
For either baptism or Eucharist (if applicable to the Eucharist), does it make a difference if the actor in the play or movie is Christian or not?
Just trying to understand the framework involved here.
Whatever the case, I don't think I've ever heard anyone from any Christian tradition say that a 'play-acting' baptism would be valid.
In Orthodox tradition there is a story of a comic actor in the first millennium whose stage at least once included a parody of Christian baptism in which the actor baptised himself. When he later repented of his attacks on the Church and converted to Christianity the local Bishop refused him baptism in church on the grounds that he was already baptised.
By this line of reasoning then someone could go up to people and offer them £10 if they agteed to be 'baptised' in the local swimming baths and that would be considered a valid baptism.
On another thread there was a comment about repeated baptisms in some US Baptist circles being unorthodox.
This doesn't sound very orthodox to me either. If anything, far less so as whatever those Baptists believe they are doing by getting baptised again when they move to another church, they are at least expressing faith in some way.
Incidentally, I've never heard of any UK Baptists doing that.
I knew one woman who was baptised again in her 20s because she didn't believe she'd understood what she was doing when she was baptised as a teenager - she felt she'd been baptised into church membership rather than baptised into Christ.
Whatever the case, I don't think I've ever heard anyone from any Christian tradition say that a 'play-acting' baptism would be valid.
I'm prepared to stand corrected but it sounds like a very 'mechanical' view of baptism to me, far more so than anything I've heard of in RC or Orthodox circles and we are sometimes accused of taking either a rather 'mechanistic' or 'magical' approach to the sacraments.
I'm pretty nonplussed and am now wondering what there is in Lutheran theology that would justify such a thing. It seems counter-intuitive to me as I would have assumed that the Lutheran emphasis on faith rather than works would preclude this approach as there's clearly no faith involved whatsoever.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
Wrong end of the stick. Though I don't guarantee at all that I'll be able to explain just why or how...
Okay, first stop. We do NOT think of baptism as "mechanical" in any way. As someone (hey, it was you!) said up above, what happens in baptism is God's work, not mechanical. The power is God's, the work is God's, and we would argue, that even goes so far as to overcome the intentions of the baptizer and the baptized. If the baptizer intends nothing but tomfoolery, God can and will use that anyway to make a new Christian. Do you remember the fellow we had on the Ship during the lockdown, who was considering asking an atheist to do it? That would have been okay, though in the end he self-baptized... And it would have been okay, even if the atheist had no intention whatsoever of doing what the church does, or however you want to phrase it.
You see, the problem with intentionalism of any sort is that it's completely invisible to other human beings. We can never be certain that the baptizer (communion celebrant, etc.) is in fact holding the proper intentions at the time. He might be drunk or high, he might be in a state of serious doubt or sin,he might have lost his own faith altogether--if the efficacy of God's sacraments depend on proper intentions in the baptizer, we're all screwed (pardon my language), because we can never be quite sure, can we?
Similarly with proper intentions in the baptized/communicant. We think we know our own hearts, but "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)
But God himself is no deceiver, nor is he deceived. And as for his acts--we can all (well, most of us!) see perfectly well if there's been a baptism or not. We can all hear (etc.) if communion is being consecrated, and we can taste the elements. Therefore we need not be in any doubt about the efficacy of God's gifts, so long as they rely solely on God's promises, and not at all on human intentions.
For what it's worth, there's one more interesting case of a baptism you might find interesting, and that's the baptism of Augustine's teenage friend--the one that used to mock Christianity with him? That one. He apparently got sick very suddenly one day, and his family despaired of his life; and so they had him baptized while unconscious. He made a very unexpected recovery, and Augustine visited him and started up the old mocking, making fun of his baptism, and expecting his friend to join in. The friend got very upset with him and threatened to throw him out of the room. While unconscious, he had had a complete change of heart and come to faith--true faith, as far as anybody could judge. Which is rather a good thing, as he died a few days later.
I mention it because this is a case where the baptized wasn't even conscious, to have any intentions--and his last known attitudes toward the Faith were not good. It appears that God managed to overcome that as well.
(Oh, what am I thinking? I forgot one very close to me. My father--who was baptized solely out of a desire to date--and later marry--my mother, and who promptly gave up all semblance of Christianity after they were married. Yes, my childhood kind of sucked as a result! This is one of the major reasons I had almost no exposure to Christianity--Mom couldn't manage to get to church three children within four years of each other, with one of them always sick, and no help from her husband). He stayed increasingly anti-Christian until he was in his late 50s, roughly six months before his death. At which point apparently the seeds of that baptism began to sprout--at least, I'm not aware of any Christians in his social circle, and my parents were long since divorced. He shocked the socks off me when he called me, wanting my husband to do a Christian wedding... And again, I'm glad of it, because we didn't any of us realize he had only six months left to live.)
Yikes! You'd wanted me to explain where faith comes in. Baptism creates faith, when it is not already present in the person-being-baptized. Which is simply another way of saying, "The Holy Spirit uses baptism to kindle faith in the person..." because creating faith in the heart is his particular work, though of course the whole Trinity is involved in everything one of him/them does.
Those who are speaking from a Baptist perspective may question this for two reasons. They look around and recognize that quite a few baptized people go on to live as if they were going to hell, by human judgement; and what accounts for that if baptism doesn't have a human component? Also, outraged, they demand to know if baptism is all you have to do to be guaranteed a spot in heaven, and is it all mechanical after all?
This is the result of mixing up a Lutheran doctrine of baptism with an extremely NON-Lutheran teaching known to some as "the perseverance of the saints," aka "once you choose it, you can't lose it." Um, yes you can, by Lutheran thinking, and we'd argue with you about the choosing bit, too. We believe that spiritual suicide IS possible (God forbid), that while God will do outrageous things to keep you safe, if you insist on being lost, you can (in the end) do that--and that accounts for those who have been baptized but go on to reject everything God gave them. But even then, it's never safe to count God out; he has a way of reaching in at the very last minute and reclaiming some of these people, all unexpectedly. Baptism can lie buried, as it were, for many years, before the first green leaf comes up.
Sigh. And a THIRD overlooked point. Something about Charlemagne forcing baptism at swordpoint.
The reason we don't do this, or recommend it (quite the opposite! So also with your "pay people to be baptized" suggestion) is that it would be simple blasphemy. We may not abuse God's good gifts this way. God refuses to force himself on people. If someone refuses to be baptized, let him refuse. If someone already baptized insists on rejecting it later in life, he has that right as well. We are not to interfere with human free will where God himself refuses to interfere.
Then, too, there's this. After forcibly baptizing someone (and committing blasphemy thereby), said person is almost certainly going to turn around and reject the gift of God in sheer outrage, plus run as far away from Christianity as he can possibly get. Which is the opposite of what you were trying to accomplish. It's possible for them to do this because, as I mentioned, God refuses to override human free will that way; and if we do it in his name, we cannot expect supernatural help to get our way with the outcome.
I suppose this thread was bound to generate tangents!
Lamb Chopped
I do believer in outrageous grace, by the way, overcoming our worst and most obstinate intentions. And also that its operation may confound our human understanding. Seeing things that way should keep us humble. So I appreciate your explanations.
And as a Baptist I’m not outraged by them! God’s generosity is not bounded by human expectation. I think this is the point of the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Or the response of the Father of the Prodigal to the outrage of the other son.
Firstly, thank you @Lamb Chopped for your explanations. I'm still puzzled but can follow the logic.
I had wondered about the free-will element as, like the Lutherans it seems, we Orthodox don't believe that God 'forces' anyone to choose him as it were. I'm sure the Reformed would say that too.
Secondly, apologies @Nick Tamen, the only reason I raised the critique of Lutheranism from a Reformed writer was because I wondered whether differences between these traditions centred around the kind of issues @Lamb Chopped raised.
It was a clumsy thing for me to do and I should have phrased my question differently.
Thirdly, @Ex_Organist - I'd forgotten that story but then there are all sorts of stories in the hagiographies which challenge preconceptions and what we might call orthodox (small o) and Orthodox (Big O) norms or expectations.
I'm sure they are there deliberately as it were to demonstrate that we can't 'limit' God or out him in a box.
Scripture is full of such things also.
I s'pose inevitably, all these boil down, if boil down they can, to the both/and thing I constantly and unapologetically trot out.
'Synergia'.
Sacraments/ordinances are human actions yet God works in and through them.
We are not sock-puppets but neither can we save ourselves by our own efforts.
On particular occasions we Orthodox chant, 'As many as have been baptised into Christ (God's action) have put on Christ (our synergistic response), Hallelujah!'
Both/and.
Obviously we don't sing the words inside the brackets!
The 'invisibility' of 'intentionality' doesn't pose a problem in this sense as 'the word of God is living and active' and reveals 'the thoughts and intentions of the heart.'
To God, if not always to us.
'But we have the mind of Christ.'
Which brings me to another issue I was going to raise (not that these others are exhausted), which is the corporate aspect.
We are baptised into Christ. We put on Christ as it were. We are grafted into his Body. Ultimately we become by grace as he is by nature.
How do we understand the ecclesial aspects of the sacraments, the corporate dimension.
I was wondering if I had misunderstood what LC was putting forward,but no she talked about both the baptizer and the baptized.
Most of those who are baptized in the Catholic church will not have really been aware of what has happened,given that most of them are babies,but there has to be on the other hand one or more responsible adults who take on the responsibility (parents and godparents).
It would seem however to be treating the sacraments as magic if one agreed that the mere fact that someone happened to utter words'I baptise you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit' while happening to pour water on the head of someone, would constitute a normal valid baptism,even if neither the baptizer nor the baptized were aware of what they were doing.
And yet of course we can count many actions which we carry out as bringing God's blessings to others,whether we count them as 'sacraments' in the way that the word is normally understood.
@Gamma Gamaliel wrt my friend - I think it was a mixture of the priest figuring that chrismation would fix a somewhat dodgy baptism and also a bit of a "well what do you expect from Protestants" attitude (I think my friend's confessor was Romanian, and certainly was from a background that chalked such things up to "weird Protestant mishegas*" even though it's not really representative of Protestants generally). Also the fact that my friend's parents were also converting as a result of my friend's own conversion - I suspect that this 'regularised' things somewhat as far as my friend's confessor was concerned.
*I'm not aware of the Romanian Orthodox equivalent of "mishegas" but it's such a fitting word here that I had to borrow from Judaism. Also, one of my Jewish friends frequently refers to Evangelical behaviour as "mishegas" so I think it's valid.
I think the ecclesial dimension of the sacraments should be “offered on an open hand”. I understand the importance of protection within the corporate ecclesial community; also the risks of it degenerating into control.
Corporate vulnerability and humility are as much exemplary virtues as the responsible exercise of corporate authority. There is a lot from Jesus in the gospels about the misuse of corporate authority.
Ok. I think, @Pomona and @Barnabas62 that if you spoke to some Bulgarians and other Eastern Europeans I know about the antics of certain evangelical - mostly American - missionaries in their home countries you would readily understand why they might be wary.
'Mishegas' doesn't even come close.
That said, I'm sure many US evangelicals and Protestants more generally would distance themselves from the crack-pot end of their particular spectrum.
Equally, if evangelicals and Protestants more generally were to come across some of the folk-religious practices, superstition and whacko conspiracy theories I've encountered among Orthodox Eastern Europeans they'd think, 'What the heck is Gamma Gamaliel getting into?!'
The mileage varies, as they say here, but in general I find that Romanians etc are familiar with RCs and what we might call more indigenous forms of Protestantism in their home countries but tend to assume that evangelicals, Pentecostals, JWs and Mormons are all dodgy imported cults.
Some assume that Anglicanism is an English form of Orthodoxy. Others are quite well informed about 'Western' forms of Christianity.
I think the ecclesial dimension of the sacraments should be “offered on an open hand”. I understand the importance of protection within the corporate ecclesial community; also the risks of it degenerating into control.
Corporate vulnerability and humility are as much exemplary virtues as the responsible exercise of corporate authority. There is a lot from Jesus in the gospels about the misuse of corporate authority.
Ok. I wasn't thinking of 'protection' primarily but that does come into the communal dimension of course. One of the roles expected of the episcopacy is the 'guarding' and protection of the faith.
I'm happy to discuss the aspect you've raised of course.
But primarily I'm interested in how the 'communal' dimension- which is how I was using the term 'corporate' - which is related to 'corporal' of course, relating to the 'body' - works out in our respective communities.
Perhaps some right wing neonational fundamentalist evangelical imperialist supporters of the individualised prosperity gospel may very well fit the label, @Gamma Gamaliel.
But that’s hardly all Protestants or Evangelicals is it? The label doesn’t fit Bishop Mariann Budde - or Jim Wallis come to think of it.
Bad experiences with a subset doesn’t justify the labelling of the complete set. All generalisations are wrong including this one?
Where did anyone say that whacko fundamentalist evangelists are representative of Protestantism as a whole?
I've re-read my post and can't see where I said anything of the kind.
What I'm saying is that if the only exposure to evangelicalism people from certain countries get comes from the loopy end of the spectrum, it's understandable that they might put two and two together and make five.
I'm not saying it's right, far from it. But if there's a loopy fundamentalist evangelist running amok in your village and you didn't have any other contact with Protestantism other than that, it's going to affect how you might regard Protestantism in general.
Equally, if the only contact you have with Orthodoxy is some beardy-weirdy 'zealot' fulminating about obscure rubrics and issues around Calendars and denouncing the Pope as the Anti-Christ and all Protestants as hell-bound heretics then you might be forgiven for getting a bad impression of the Tradition they claim to represent.
If it helps get the thread back on track, here's an anecdote.
I may have heard it here. I can't remember where I got wind of it.
The gist of it was as follows.
There were concerns in a particular place in Russia about the activities of American missionaries. They were accused of 'sheep-stealing' from Orthodox parishes.
A meeting was held between the evangelicals and Orthodox clergy and laity to seek some kind of resolution.
After some discussion and to everyone's astonishment one of the US evangelists knelt down and publicly repented of not treating the Orthodox as fellow believers.
The Orthodox bishop then knelt down and asked the evangelist's forgiveness for neglecting catechesis within the parishes under his care and allowing a formmof nominal Christianity to flourish.
@Barnabas62 - I didn't object to @Pomona's use of the term 'mishegas'. I understood what Pomona was getting at. Heck, I'd apply the term to some things that go on within 'cultural' and folk-religious forms of Orthodoxy. The belief in the 'evil-eye', the way some people approach the sacraments in a 'magical thinking' kind of way, tendencies towards phyletism and Erastianism etc etc etc.
I'm not saying the Romanian priest in the instance Pomona cites was right to think ill of Protestantism as a whole. But given the context I can understand it.
FWIW I've seen Romanian priests interject in online discussions to stop posters bad-mouthing Anglicans or other Christian confessions. Those Romanian priests I know have a very respectful attitude towards other Christian churches.
That is not the case in Romanian monasteries from what a monk has told me. He said that some of the older monks think anything 'Western' is 'demonic' and they only tolerate ecumenism because the Patriarch has told them they have to do so.
Heck, we don't have to go far to find evangelicals who might not accept that RCs or Orthodox are 'real' Christians - although that's certainly changing and has changed during my lifetime.
Anyhow, in the spirit of ecumenism I'm interested to hear how the 'communal' or 'corporate' aspects of sacraments/ordinances are understood within our respective Christian traditions and how that might link both to the 'pneumatic' and the personal/individual element.
You see, the problem with intentionalism of any sort is that it's completely invisible to other human beings. We can never be certain that the baptizer (communion celebrant, etc.) is in fact holding the proper intentions at the time. He might be drunk or high, he might be in a state of serious doubt or sin,he might have lost his own faith altogether--if the efficacy of God's sacraments depend on proper intentions in the baptizer, we're all screwed (pardon my language), because we can never be quite sure, can we?
. . .
But God himself is no deceiver, nor is he deceived. And as for his acts--we can all (well, most of us!) see perfectly well if there's been a baptism or not. We can all hear (etc.) if communion is being consecrated, and we can taste the elements. Therefore we need not be in any doubt about the efficacy of God's gifts, so long as they rely solely on God's promises, and not at all on human intentions.
I wonder if an apophatoc framework works here—we can’t always be sure what someone’s interest are, much less that those intentions are pure, so to speak. But I’d say we can be reliably sure that in a movie or play, no one intends to perform an actual baptism.
I know you said it’s not mechanical, much less magical, but I have trouble seeing how it’s not as you’ve described it. Use water and say the right words, and God is summoned and baptisms happens, no matter what. I’m afraid I have a hard time with that.
My tradition would say only the church—the covenant community, the Body of Christ, into which the person is being baptized—can baptize. An individual cannot baptize unless authorized by the church to do so. If the action of the church is removed from the equation, whether we’re talking about a movie or play or kids playing in a ditch, then what’s happening isn’t a baptism.
This is the result of mixing up a Lutheran doctrine of baptism with an extremely NON-Lutheran teaching known to some as "the perseverance of the saints," aka "once you choose it, you can't lose it." Um, yes you can, by Lutheran thinking, and we'd argue with you about the choosing bit, too.
Speaking as one who comes from a tradition that has and does teach perseverance of the saints, we would argue with the choosing bit, too! Perseverance of the saints is not “once you choose it, you can’t lose it”! It’s “God has chosen you, and God will remain faithful.” The doctrine of perseverance of the saints, like the Reformed understanding, is rooted in the conviction that God acts to choose us before we even think about choosing God.
I suppose this thread was bound to generate tangents!
Given that this is a thread that naturally raises questions about understandings of what sacraments or ordinances are, what they mean and how they “work,” I really don’t see how this is a tangent.
@Barnabas62 my friend's background is one that most British Protestants would consider to be wacky/extreme - given how small the UK Christian world can be, I am conscious of not wanting to make my friend too identifiable so I skated over the details of her background. After all, it's her story and not mine (everything I've shared has been public knowledge amongst people who know her). But suffice it to say, I don't think most UK Protestants would be uncomfortable in labelling her church background as a church full of "craziness" or "foolishness" - it was a wacky church background even for char-evos. Also my friend herself would certainly have zero hesitation in referring to her church background as "mishegas"!
I would also question the extent to which most UK Protestants have heard of Bishop Mariann Budde or Jim Wallis. Of course they are well-known in terms of theological circles, but outside of places like the Ship and Greenbelt etc etc I don't think the average churchgoer is really up on that kind of thing - but of course it applies to all churches, it's not like the average RC is going to be reading Thomas Merton either.
Heres a pithy explanation of the RC view on intention and sacraments. In sacramental theology, intention refers to the minister’s will to perform the rite as Christ and the Church intend. For a sacrament to be valid, the minister must sincerely want to "do what the Church does," alongside using the correct matter (physical elements) and form (words)
That would seem to rule out dramas etc.
What I'm finding fascinating from an Orthodox perspective is how some of what @Lamb Chopped, @Nick Tamen and @Barnabas62 are saying overlap completely with where I'm coming from, only for a 'corner', an 'edge' or 'flap' to come loose elsewhere.
I daresay all three of them would say the same in reverse.
'Hmmm ... that accords with a Lutheran / Reformed or 'baptistic' understanding ... but that doesn't...'
So for instance, I find myself nodding in agreement with Nick Tamen over the ecclesial aspect, even though we might differ in aspects of ecclesiology.
Likewise, I'll nod along with Lamb Chopped on the common ground over God not 'forcing' people only to scratch my head in puzzlement over other aspects ...
I'm more familiar with @Barnabas62's tradition but feel we are 'talking past each other' to some extent.
Sure, there are parts of the Venn Diagram where we all overlap. But as soon as we tuck one part in, something else pops out of place somewhere else.
Which is why these debates have been going on since the Reformation of course, with some foreshadowings before that.
I'd say that Holy Tradition helps us reconcile all these apparent contradictions of course. But then, I would say that. 😉
But then there are different 'takes' on what constitutes Tradition otherwise the RCs and ourselves wouldn't continue to be sadly separated.
Anyhow @Nick Tamen has raised the important ecclesial dimension to all of this. Let's see where that takes us and where the discussion goes next.
The doctrine of perseverance of the saints, like the Reformed understanding, is rooted in the conviction that God acts to choose us before we even think about choosing God.
Dang it! That should have been, “The doctrine of perseverance of the saints, like the Reformed understanding of baptism, is rooted in the conviction that God acts to choose us before we even think about choosing God.”
First of all, my apologies if I'm confusing anybody or adding darkness rather than light to the discussion. I'll try to do my best on this.
On the question of magic: I'm not sure just what people are trying to convey when they say that a view of baptism is "magic" or "not magic." How does that differ from "mechanical" or "automatic"?
Taking my best guess, I think what is meant is "something that accomplishes a particular good purpose every time the action is taken, but we can't see how and it makes our brains hurt trying to figure out a mechanism for it."
If that's the case, I have no problem calling the sacraments "magic" AS LONG AS it's made clear, every time we use the word, that the reason the desired outcome happens is due to the faithful love and generosity of God.
The way Lutherans usually explain this is to say that God has bound himself by promise. In the case of the sacraments, he has said, "Do this, and I will do that." And since God is 100% faithful and keeps his promises all the time, it's really easy to mistake that situation for something that is "automatic" (self-generating without outside input) or "mechanical" (also self-generating).
That would be a huge mistake, to leave God out of the equation (so to speak). That leads to a silly, debased view of the sacraments--one where we can manipulate them how we please without fear of changing the results, or having other negative outcomes.
But since God IS involved, is in fact the prime actor in the sacraments, they belong to him, and the outcomes also belong to him, and he can do what he wants--including allowing various negative outcomes to happen to idiots who think they can "own" and control the sacraments for their own purposes. (For example, the utterly predictable anger of people forced into baptism, and whatever actions they take as a result.)
So, trying to answer this--
I know you said it’s not mechanical, much less magical, but I have trouble seeing how it’s not as you’ve described it. Use water and say the right words, and God is summoned and baptisms happens, no matter what. I’m afraid I have a hard time with that.
The problem here IMHO is the bit where "God is summoned." I'm good with that language if we take it in the same frame of mind as "a baby cries, and its parent is summoned" or "a child relies on a father's promise to pick it up after school, and the father is summoned." But I'm NOT good with it if what you're imagining is the "I'm a magician summoning a demon through my magical spell" trope. That's a case where the magician has power over the demon, and the demon has no choice but to obey.That's not the case with baptism or communion. There, the only thing we human beings have is a promise, not actual power.
And promises like these are made by the person-with-power to the person-in-need. The person possessing real power (the father picking up his child, God) makes a promise that the lesser person relies on. So in the sacraments, all the power and all the choice resides with God. He voluntarily bound himself with a promise; he voluntarily chooses to fulfill the promise, every single time. If he wished, he could choose to break that promise and we could do nothing about it. We have no power. He has it all.
But for our comfort, and because he loves us, he binds himself by promise. And his promises are as stable (or more so, really) than natural law--because he's just that kind of person.
...
Okay, taking it from another angle: what about those extreme edge cases, the film baptism or the two children playing in a ditch?
The longer I live with him, the more I'm convinced that God is utterly unscrupulous and has no concern for his own reputation. If someone accidentally gets baptized (speaking in human terms), God will absolutely take advantage of that to the full extend that he can (given his refusal to ride roughshod over human free will). I mean, that case I cited where Augustine's friend was baptized while unconscious when his parents had every reason to believe he would refuse it IF conscious. Today we'd call that immoral or at least unethical. But they did it, and by all the signs God took advantage of it. I could see him taking advantage of the film baptism or the ditch baptism as well. He's just like that, when it comes to blessing people.
It's not a license for us to run around behaving immorally or unethically, or even foolishly (which I'd argue is the case with the film baptism--it's not right to do that sort of thing for the sake of a movie. The children get off because of their age). But once the act is committed, yes, God can and will take advantage of it to bless, up to the limit of what the recipient allows him to do (because human free will).
First of all, my apologies if I'm confusing anybody or adding darkness rather than light to the discussion. I'll try to do my best on this.
You’re not adding darkness at all. For some of us, this is just a lot to wrap our heads around.
On the question of magic: I'm not sure just what people are trying to convey when they say that a view of baptism is "magic" or "not magic." How does that differ from "mechanical" or "automatic"?
Taking my best guess, I think what is meant is "something that accomplishes a particular good purpose every time the action is taken, but we can't see how and it makes our brains hurt trying to figure out a mechanism for it."
That’s not quite what I mean. I mean something more like do the action and say the words, and no matter what, the result will happen. Kind of like the kids having a sleepover were just joking around, but they said “Bloody Mary” three times while looking in a mirror, and she showed up.
The way Lutherans usually explain this is to say that God has bound himself by promise. In the case of the sacraments, he has said, "Do this, and I will do that." And since God is 100% faithful and keeps his promises all the time, it's really easy to mistake that situation for something that is "automatic" (self-generating without outside input) or "mechanical" (also self-generating).
I’m good with that, but the question it raises for me is “to whom does God make that promise?” My answer would be “to the church, the community of the faithful.” So the promise from my perspective is “Do this, church, and I will do that.” If it’s not the church doing it, then God’s promises don’t come into play to start with.
That God may nevertheless act through it doesn’t make it a baptism. It makes God one who works through everything.
The problem here IMHO is the bit where "God is summoned." I'm good with that language if we take it in the same frame of mind as "a baby cries, and its parent is summoned" or "a child relies on a father's promise to pick it up after school, and the father is summoned." But I'm NOT good with it if what you're imagining is the "I'm a magician summoning a demon through my magical spell" trope. That's a case where the magician has power over the demon, and the demon has no choice but to obey.That's not the case with baptism or communion. There, the only thing we human beings have is a promise, not actual power.
This is where I get caught up, because I really don’t see any meaningful difference between the view of baptism you’re describing and the magician. If anybody says the right words with the right action, God, who has promised and is faithful, essentially must obey, even if the baptism is just part of a play.
And when it’s part of a play (to belabor that example), it’s not like a baby crying. Its pretend.
I mean, that case I cited where Augustine's friend was baptized while unconscious when his parents had every reason to believe he would refuse it IF conscious. Today we'd call that immoral or at least unethical. But they did it, and by all the signs God took advantage of it. I could see him taking advantage of the film baptism or the ditch baptism as well. He's just like that, when it comes to blessing people.
To me, this isn’t a quite an apt comparison. Augustine’s friend was baptized in the manner authorized by the church. That he was unconscious is more like an infant who can’t answer.
It’s really not the same at all as a movie or play.
@Lamb Chopped I think the suggestion that nobody should portray baptism on stage or in a film is quite a strange one. This would presumably mean no films or plays about the life of Jesus since Jesus is baptised. That seems....extreme. A baptism as part of a play or film is obviously not real in the same way that a movie battle isn't a real battle. I think God can tell the difference between fiction and reality.
This conversation is even making Orthodoxy look simple ... 😉
More seriously, I think @Nick Tamen is on the money with the ecclesial element. And yes, films and plays are 'pretend'.
I could get polemical and suggest that certain 'Western' emphases dichotomise and disaggregate things to the extent that the scriptures are uncoupled from Tradition, the sacraments from the Church ...
That would be unfair as there's an ecclesiology behind everything anyone's posted on this thread so far, and many of the views expressed are complementary rather than contradictory.
Conditional baptism is indeed a 'just in case' scenario.
If you were baptised with the pouring of or immersion in water and words which mean 'I baptise you in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit' then you are validly baptised ,at least from a Catholic point of view. The water does not have to have been blessed and the person doing the baptism does not have to be an ordained priest. (in extreme conditions does not even have to be a Christian)
However there is one other condition,perhaps not already mentioned,namely the person carrying out the baptism has to be intending to baptise.
In any case the Catholic Church also recognises the 'baptism of desire' and the 'baptism of blood' but I won't take that any further.
As Lutherans, my understanding is that the last thing you mentioned--the intention--isn't necessary. As long as "Water and the Word" is present, we consider that a baptism. (We've never been much on intentionalism in any way.)
I’ve always understood the “intent requirement” there simply to mean that, for example, a baptism in a movie or a stage play wouldn’t be considered an actual baptism because the intent there is to portray a baptism for dramatic purposes, not actually to baptize.
Yes, I understand this.
I'm afraid I'm going to shock you now by saying that yes, we would consider a stage baptism valid, provided it involved the triune Name, water, and an unbaptized recipient.
In fact, there is a semi-historical legend about two children playing church in a farm ditch, where one of them baptized the other in imitation of the pastor. The issue of validity came up before the church authorities, and they held it to be a real baptism. We haven't changed our minds on that, either.
One of my kids attempted to drown me at a swimming pool after saying "let's do that thing like at church"!
My wife, when a small child, "baptised" her grandfather's dog (also in a swimming pool as it happens) as she worried about its eternal destiny.
I'm not sure I'd count either example as strictly valid...
This doesn't sound very orthodox to me either. If anything, far less so as whatever those Baptists believe they are doing by getting baptised again when they move to another church, they are at least expressing faith in some way.
Incidentally, I've never heard of any UK Baptists doing that.
I've heard, and witnessed it happening in both Baptist and Anglican circles. Or at least the individuals concerned were re-baptised at least once - I've no idea if it happened multiple times.
I remember back in the 90s the singer of guns and roses getting married to his actual girlfriend in a music video and there being an urban myth/rumour that as the celebrant in the video actually was a real priest (not sure what flavour) that they were legally married.
I'm not sure I'd count either example as strictly valid...
If you are litigating validity you have fallen into magical thinking.
Whether those examples are valid or not, for those of us who believe that the sacraments (including baptism) have supernatural aspects, “magical” is a perfectly decent term (and not something negative that one “falls” into)—just an understatement, as the sacraments are, in our theology, superior to any kind of more “earthly” magic. And validity is certainly a relevant concern, whether one believes in infant baptism or not, for example.
@Lamb Chopped I think the suggestion that nobody should portray baptism on stage or in a film is quite a strange one. This would presumably mean no films or plays about the life of Jesus since Jesus is baptised. That seems....extreme. A baptism as part of a play or film is obviously not real in the same way that a movie battle isn't a real battle. I think God can tell the difference between fiction and reality.
He can. What I'm suggesting is more old-fashioned than, um, stupid!
I'm suggesting that it isn't right to show the whole of any religious rite as part of a play or movie. Bits of it, sure. Hint at the rest, sure. But I'm fairly sure this was common practice "in the olden days," possibly out of a gut feeling that such things ought not to be carried out for mere purposes of enjoyment/spectacle. Possibly there was also a sense of--shall we call it awe? a sense that you ought not mess with what is holy and powerful in quite that way?
And before somebody asks me, I'd be happy to stipulate the same for the rites of other religions.
Oh, what the heck. I'm going to really put the cat among the pigeons.
How do we know that what we Westerners disdain as "magical thinking" or even outright magic is to be automatically treated as if there is no power in it, and therefore no damage to be done, however we handle it?
I know that's our worldview, but I've lived between worldviews for most of my life, and the greater part of the world does not agree with us.
In my open brethren upbringing baptism was seen as a public declaration of your belief.
I have my Hymns of Light and Love given to me by the elders and inscribed with the date. ( I was 16).
The Baptist church I later moved to accepted that baptism. The UCA never asked me about it, IIRR.
The reference of John The Baptist to some Pharisees as a brood of vipers would likely have been understood that baptism was not a magical act automatically conferring some state on a person.
I remember some missionaries relating that a village did their baptisms in the river, and those baptised entered on one bank and afterwards left on the other bank to symbolise their decision. The whole village would go to watch the baptisms, including those that had not professed their decision.
We use a prayer before we receive the Holy Mysteries in the eucharist which includes the following:
'Of thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant: for I will not speak of Thy Mystery to thine enemies ...'
This carries an echo of how the early Christians used to keep the ritual 'to themselves' and as something particularly holy and, in a sense, 'exclusive', even though it is offered 'on behalf of all and for all.'
There are echoes of an antiquity where Christians worshipped in secret due to persecution and indeed we still retain the formulary whereby catechumens are ordered to leave at a certain point even though we don't boot them out these days.
Against that background we can understand how a sense of awe developed around the sacred Mysteries and that's entirely appropriate.
The Apostle Paul warned that there might even be fatal consequences for those who don't approach these things with due reverence. Yikes!
This can spill over into legalism and superstition of course. Romanians have told me of a priest they know in a rural area who found that people weren't coming to communion because a belief had developed that unless you had achieved an unfeasibly high level of sanctity beforehand you would die.
One day he took communion to a house-bound old lady who had not received the Holy Gifts for many years. Her neighbours expected her to keel over and die and were surprised that she suffered no ill effects. Gradually they began to receive communion themselves.
All sorts of local customs and practices can develop.
I've heard of Romanian priests who refuse communion to people who smoke, for instance.
RCs and Orthodox both believe that sacraments effect what they 'depict' or portray / convey.
It sounds like Lutherans believe the same.
How we 'do' these things may differ but we share a belief in the efficacy of sacraments/ordinances however many we recognise - two, seven or even none whatsoever.
There's an echo of this, I suggest in the lovely story @LatchKeyKid tells of people leaving the river in the opposite direction to the one they entered it to be baptised. It enacts the change they believe to have taken place, although they'd believe that the action testifies to that rather than effects it.
I agree with @Lamb Chopped that 'Western' ways of thinking can rob us of a sense of mystery in the full sense as it were. I'd suggest though - very carefully and tentatively - that a tendency to either overly 'automate' or overly 'mysticise' these things is itself a 'Western' tendency.
That's why we need the Orthodox concept of synergia - of human co-operation with the divine.
I'm not saying that the Orthodox have a monopoly on that. We see it in other Christian confessions too, of course.
What I am saying is that it helps us avoid the 'extreme' (in my view) view that Lamb Chopped has articulated about theatrical or filming depictions of baptism being 'actual' baptism simply because a particular formula is used.
It avoids extreme 'automatic' understandings of sacraments/ordinances or the sense they are magic spells.
It's like iconography. We know that icons consist of paint and egg-tempera etc on a wooden block or whatever else but we see them as 'windows to heaven' at one and the same time.
Yes, I believe that sacraments both convey and effect what they symbolise, depict and represent. They do that in a 'synergistic' way not some kind of robotic process.
I don't use an electron microscope to define where the divine element 'ends' or the human begins.
I accept the Mystery.
Through the Holy Mysteries I participate in those Mysteries.
I gradually undergo 'theosis' by the grace and mercy of Almighty God.
I become by grace as God is by nature.
Can that happen and does that happen with people who don't understand these things in the same way? Why not? God is God.
But if we believe the Church to be the Church (however defined) then it behoves us to gratefully receive the Holy Gifts God provides for us in that context.
That doesn't mean God can't or won't reach people elsewhere. It's not for us to determine how that works.
Equally, it's not for me to determine how people in other Christian traditions receive grace or understand and articulate these things - or those in non-Christian religions or of no faith whatsoever.
@Lamb Chopped I think the suggestion that nobody should portray baptism on stage or in a film is quite a strange one. This would presumably mean no films or plays about the life of Jesus since Jesus is baptised. That seems....extreme. A baptism as part of a play or film is obviously not real in the same way that a movie battle isn't a real battle. I think God can tell the difference between fiction and reality.
He can. What I'm suggesting is more old-fashioned than, um, stupid!
I'm suggesting that it isn't right to show the whole of any religious rite as part of a play or movie. Bits of it, sure. Hint at the rest, sure. But I'm fairly sure this was common practice "in the olden days," possibly out of a gut feeling that such things ought not to be carried out for mere purposes of enjoyment/spectacle. Possibly there was also a sense of--shall we call it awe? a sense that you ought not mess with what is holy and powerful in quite that way?
And before somebody asks me, I'd be happy to stipulate the same for the rites of other religions.
I guess for me the difficulty is dismissing a film or play as somehow inherently unfit to portray holy things, or that they are merely entertainment. When schools and churches put on Nativity plays for example, it's not just for fun.
I'm not sure I'd count either example as strictly valid...
If you are litigating validity you have fallen into magical thinking.
Lack of intent ?
Intent from whom? A sacrament is a sacred act to which God has freely added his promise, magic on the other hand is an attempt to control the spiritual world through ritual. They can have a superficial resemblance but are quite different.
It's easy to topple over into 'magical thinking' of course and those of us who worship in a more ritualised way have to be wary of that.
We Orthodox tend to do things in threes, for obvious Trinitarian reasons, but it's easy to see how that could be interpreted as some kind of 'magical' incantation.
We can find examples in most traditions. Extreme forms of Pentecostalism and 'name it and claim it' prosperity gospel movements can easily topple over into 'magical thinking' and the belief that we can manipulate divine action by particular prayers, practices and formularies.
We cannot manipulate divine grace.
God is entirely free. So are we who are made in his likeness and image and are being transformed into that also by his grace. Glory be to God in all things!
Sacrament or Ordinance ?
One learns so much on these boards. Until a few years ago I had never heard of 'Ordinance' (in the religious sense) and I think that Barnabas has only recently learned that there are such things as 'baptismal certificates'.
As far as I know neither of these words were used by Jesus but the word 'sacrament' as used by many Western Christians refer to a sacred oath made by Roman soldiers and taken on by Christians for the belief that God has promised to act in the rites which are called by many 'baptism' and 'eucharist'
'Ordinance' is another word,used by some Protestant Christians to refer to religious rituals which are believed to have been ''ordered' in the sense of 'commanded' by God
As we read often on these boards different words are used by different Christians to describe what they see as the words of the Gospels
Just think of names for the sharing of bread and wine
Divine Liturgy,Mass,Eucharist,Lord's Supper or as German Lutherans say 'Evening Meal' (Abendmahl). Scottish Presbyterians two or three centuries ago called it the 'Occasion'.
Even when Christians use the same words they will often have differing interpretations.
Many Christian groups accept the words of the Nicene Creed,including
(I believe in) ONE,HOLY,CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH
What does 'ONE' Church mean ?
What does 'HOLY Church mean ?
What does CATHOLIC Church mean ?
What does APOSTOLIC Church mean ?
And of course what does CHURCH mean ?
About the only thing they probably all agree on is the word 'AND'
(Though the great Protestant theologian,Karl Barth, is reputed to have said,perhaps jokingly, that the major difference between the Catholic Church and those of the Protestant Reformation is the word 'AND')
I first encountered Orthodoxy through someone who used to post here. Many years ago now.
I've also learned more about the Reformed tradition here too. I'd only encountered either full-on TULIP neo-Calvinist types or more liberal URC types and wasn't aware of the nuances and shades in between.
I'd met one or two American Lutherans and German Lutherans but not really discussed theology with them, so most of what I know about it comes from the Ship.
There are also things about Roman Catholicism I'd not known about until someone mentioned them here.
Everyday a schoolday.
Adjusting attitude and behaviour takes longer of course.
Lord have mercy!
Glory be to God in all things and through all who post here.
Ok ... I've done some Googling on the Lutheran view of baptism as God's act - and not ours - which means that a joke, malicious or play-acted baptism would still be 'valid' irrespective of the intentions of the participants.
There's a logic to that of course given a 'sola fide' approach - grace through faith and not by works lest any of us should boast.
However...
What Google and AI also tell me is that there is a difference between 'validity' and 'efficacy' and whilst such a baptism would be considered valid, its efficacy for the recipient would depend on their faith.
Ok ... I've done some Googling on the Lutheran view of baptism as God's act - and not ours - which means that a joke, malicious or play-acted baptism would still be 'valid' irrespective of the intentions of the participants.
There's a logic to that of course given a 'sola fide' approach - grace through faith and not by works lest any of us should boast.
However...
What Google and AI also tell me is that there is a difference between 'validity' and 'efficacy' and whilst such a baptism would be considered valid, its efficacy for the recipient would depend on their faith.
So, are we back with 'synergia' after all?
Hoo boy.
I've been reluctant to disagree with @Lamb Chopped who is far more generous and available with responses concerning Lutheranism. However, what she has posted here does not accord completely with my understanding of the theology of Baptism.
In my understanding, Baptism occurs in the context of faith. Luther, Small Catechism, The Sacrament of Holy Baptism, III: "How can water do such great things? Clearly the water does not do it, but the word of God, which is with and alongside the water, and faith, which trusts this word of God in the water." [italics mine]
The baptism of Augustine's friend was done in the context of faith, as is the baptism of infants and others unable to answer for themselves. A sponsor or sponsors answer, in good faith, when the person is unable to respond for themselves.
If it were not so, it would be incumbent on Lutherans to take firehoses and buckets to every street corner in the world, and wet people down while shouting the Trinitarian formula! Why would you not want every possible human to have the gracious gift of baptism? But such behaviour would be assaultive, not gracious, because there is no context of faith - no sponsor, or of course the person answering that they do indeed desire baptism before it happens.
Consent matters.
I hasten to say that such consent is a gift of the Holy Spirit, faith meeting faith. Lutherans do not believe in 'synergia' - that I can assert confidently of all Lutheran bodies. Following Augustine, we have a negative theological anthropology. We would say we cannot choose the good; that would be the Holy Spirit acting in and through us. Human will and human reason are not viewed the same as in other Christian perspectives.
This accords with what I would 'expect' the Lutheran position to be, although I'd readily admit to not being as familiar with Lutheranism as I am with other Protestant traditions.
The Orthodox would say that the Lutherans, and the RCs from which they derived, ratcheted some of Augustine's emphases to some extent, of course.
We still regard St Augustine as 'one of ours' but trace an influence from him via Anselm and Aquinas to the Reformers that we find somewhat 'over-egged'.
Again, I'm no expert and not all Orthodox theologians are as negative about Aquinas as others.
I may start a new thread on 'synergia'.
It can be misrepresented as 'salvation by works' just as some Reformation emphases can be misrepresented as suggesting that there is no place for 'good works' or human effort.
The Virgin Mary's response, 'Let it be done to me according to your word,' is seen as a paradigmatic example of 'synergia' of course.
My tradition would say only the church—the covenant community, the Body of Christ, into which the person is being baptized—can baptize. An individual cannot baptize unless authorized by the church to do so. If the action of the church is removed from the equation, whether we’re talking about a movie or play or kids playing in a ditch, then what’s happening isn’t a baptism.
As @Gamma Gamaliel says, a crucial point. And one I agree with.
I asked to be baptised. Even at that time, when I had genuine and general problems with just about any authority, I knew I had to ask. I remember a friendly conversation with a church elder about why I wanted to be baptised. Can’t for the life of me remember any details. I know it was a kind of a triage! And thought it was wise thing to do.
Rather like the provision re communion of the need to know what you’re doing, I knew that applied to believer’s baptism as well. Personal responsibility and church responsibility were met together. There was a mutual sincerity in the asking and the accepting.
Oh. I’m sure there was a fair deal of ignorance mixed in with the sincerity! “By Grace through Faith” is a gift from God. Which oversees all the human elements.
Okay, I'm going to agree with some of that and maybe disagree with a bit more. Yes, we do in fact ask sponsors/godparents to answer for the child as if the child had faith already and was requesting baptism. So far, we agree.
However... I would suggest that the confession of faith that is made in the infant's name is done with respect to the faith that the Holy Spirit is during this very action creating in the infant's heart. It's not the sponsor's faith (though that is very important for other reasons) but the child's actual faith. Which could possibly wind us up in a time tangle--when exactly is the child a believer, at what point in the baptismal event?--but Lutheranism doesn't encourage us to fuss about such matters and try to dig into details God has not disclosed to us.
Why do I say it is the child's actual faith, and not the sponsor's faith or the church's faith or what have you? Because the confession of faith is done in the child's own person. "I do renounce them. ... I believe..." and so forth. It's not "As a sponsor, I believe, and therefore request baptism for this child." That would be the appropriate wording if all rested on the sponsor's faith. But it doesn't.
Now, as for why we don't just take a firehose to the general population in the name of the Father, etc. We don't do that for the same reason that we don't indiscriminately baptize every infant presented to us. We want to know that the family has some intention of raising this child in the Christian faith. If not the immediate family, then a Christian sponsor who is willing and able to undertake the child's Christian education. It makes no sense to plant a seed and then allow it to die for lack of watering. In fact, you could argue that doing so is downright harmful, as there's a really good chance that the newborn faith will wither over the next twenty years or so of zero Christian nurture, PLUS the adult who has been treated so is likely to dismiss any efforts to evangelize him or her in the future--"Oh, I was baptized when I was six months old" (with a strong overtone of "been there, done that, don't bother me about Jesus"). In my opinion, which is shared by other Lutherans I know, it would be better to leave such a child unbaptized for now, in the hopes that it will encounter the Gospel message later in its life and come for baptism then.
Similarly the passers-by who are being threatened with a baptismal firehose--no. We don't do that, first because it's rude and not how God operates, overriding human free will--but also because that kind of behavior means that whatever newborn faith the Holy Spirit manages to plant in such hearts will almost certainly be destroyed by the understandable backlash to our bad behavior--and by the lack of Christian teaching and nurture.
Comments
I don't know much about Lutheranism but that's not what I'd expect. Just shows. We allmake assumptions.
By this line of reasoning then someone could go up to people and offer them £10 if they agteed to be 'baptised' in the local swimming baths and that would be considered a valid baptism.
On another thread there was a comment about repeated baptisms in some US Baptist circles being unorthodox.
This doesn't sound very orthodox to me either. If anything, far less so as whatever those Baptists believe they are doing by getting baptised again when they move to another church, they are at least expressing faith in some way.
Incidentally, I've never heard of any UK Baptists doing that.
I knew one woman who was baptised again in her 20s because she didn't believe she'd understood what she was doing when she was baptised as a teenager - she felt she'd been baptised into church membership rather than baptised into Christ.
Whatever the case, I don't think I've ever heard anyone from any Christian tradition say that a 'play-acting' baptism would be valid.
I'm prepared to stand corrected but it sounds like a very 'mechanical' view of baptism to me, far more so than anything I've heard of in RC or Orthodox circles and we are sometimes accused of taking either a rather 'mechanistic' or 'magical' approach to the sacraments.
I'm pretty nonplussed and am now wondering what there is in Lutheran theology that would justify such a thing. It seems counter-intuitive to me as I would have assumed that the Lutheran emphasis on faith rather than works would preclude this approach as there's clearly no faith involved whatsoever.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
I can understand this to an extent given the Lutheran emphasis on God saving us, not we ourselves. Baptism then is essentially God's action and not ours - so in that sense God works through the 'action' of baptism irrespective of whether there is any faith or intentionality involved.
Would that be the line of reasoning?
If so, would Lutherans consider Charlemagne enforcing baptism on defeated pagans at sword point an acceptable strategy?
I'm confused.
Many years ago I seem to remember a Reformed critique of Lutheranism that effectively said, 'We Calvinists get accused of determinism. Listen, we've got nothing on these guys ...'
I'm not au fait enough with Reformed or Lutheran theology to say whether the critique was fair or not.
@Lamb Chopped, I’m afraid you’ve gotten me curious. (I don’t shock easily, but I’m very easily made curious.
From the Lutheran perspective you’ve described, would the same principle hold for the Eucharist? That is to say, if in a play or movie, someone took bread and wine and said the Verba, would that be a valid Eucharist from the Lutheran perspective you’re describing?
For either baptism or Eucharist (if applicable to the Eucharist), does it make a difference if the actor in the play or movie is Christian or not?
Just trying to understand the framework involved here.
In Orthodox tradition there is a story of a comic actor in the first millennium whose stage at least once included a parody of Christian baptism in which the actor baptised himself. When he later repented of his attacks on the Church and converted to Christianity the local Bishop refused him baptism in church on the grounds that he was already baptised.
Wrong end of the stick. Though I don't guarantee at all that I'll be able to explain just why or how...
Okay, first stop. We do NOT think of baptism as "mechanical" in any way. As someone (hey, it was you!) said up above, what happens in baptism is God's work, not mechanical. The power is God's, the work is God's, and we would argue, that even goes so far as to overcome the intentions of the baptizer and the baptized. If the baptizer intends nothing but tomfoolery, God can and will use that anyway to make a new Christian. Do you remember the fellow we had on the Ship during the lockdown, who was considering asking an atheist to do it? That would have been okay, though in the end he self-baptized... And it would have been okay, even if the atheist had no intention whatsoever of doing what the church does, or however you want to phrase it.
You see, the problem with intentionalism of any sort is that it's completely invisible to other human beings. We can never be certain that the baptizer (communion celebrant, etc.) is in fact holding the proper intentions at the time. He might be drunk or high, he might be in a state of serious doubt or sin,he might have lost his own faith altogether--if the efficacy of God's sacraments depend on proper intentions in the baptizer, we're all screwed (pardon my language), because we can never be quite sure, can we?
Similarly with proper intentions in the baptized/communicant. We think we know our own hearts, but "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)
But God himself is no deceiver, nor is he deceived. And as for his acts--we can all (well, most of us!) see perfectly well if there's been a baptism or not. We can all hear (etc.) if communion is being consecrated, and we can taste the elements. Therefore we need not be in any doubt about the efficacy of God's gifts, so long as they rely solely on God's promises, and not at all on human intentions.
For what it's worth, there's one more interesting case of a baptism you might find interesting, and that's the baptism of Augustine's teenage friend--the one that used to mock Christianity with him? That one. He apparently got sick very suddenly one day, and his family despaired of his life; and so they had him baptized while unconscious. He made a very unexpected recovery, and Augustine visited him and started up the old mocking, making fun of his baptism, and expecting his friend to join in. The friend got very upset with him and threatened to throw him out of the room. While unconscious, he had had a complete change of heart and come to faith--true faith, as far as anybody could judge. Which is rather a good thing, as he died a few days later.
I mention it because this is a case where the baptized wasn't even conscious, to have any intentions--and his last known attitudes toward the Faith were not good. It appears that God managed to overcome that as well.
(Oh, what am I thinking? I forgot one very close to me. My father--who was baptized solely out of a desire to date--and later marry--my mother, and who promptly gave up all semblance of Christianity after they were married. Yes, my childhood kind of sucked as a result! This is one of the major reasons I had almost no exposure to Christianity--Mom couldn't manage to get to church three children within four years of each other, with one of them always sick, and no help from her husband). He stayed increasingly anti-Christian until he was in his late 50s, roughly six months before his death. At which point apparently the seeds of that baptism began to sprout--at least, I'm not aware of any Christians in his social circle, and my parents were long since divorced. He shocked the socks off me when he called me, wanting my husband to do a Christian wedding... And again, I'm glad of it, because we didn't any of us realize he had only six months left to live.)
Those who are speaking from a Baptist perspective may question this for two reasons. They look around and recognize that quite a few baptized people go on to live as if they were going to hell, by human judgement; and what accounts for that if baptism doesn't have a human component? Also, outraged, they demand to know if baptism is all you have to do to be guaranteed a spot in heaven, and is it all mechanical after all?
This is the result of mixing up a Lutheran doctrine of baptism with an extremely NON-Lutheran teaching known to some as "the perseverance of the saints," aka "once you choose it, you can't lose it." Um, yes you can, by Lutheran thinking, and we'd argue with you about the choosing bit, too. We believe that spiritual suicide IS possible (God forbid), that while God will do outrageous things to keep you safe, if you insist on being lost, you can (in the end) do that--and that accounts for those who have been baptized but go on to reject everything God gave them. But even then, it's never safe to count God out; he has a way of reaching in at the very last minute and reclaiming some of these people, all unexpectedly. Baptism can lie buried, as it were, for many years, before the first green leaf comes up.
The reason we don't do this, or recommend it (quite the opposite! So also with your "pay people to be baptized" suggestion) is that it would be simple blasphemy. We may not abuse God's good gifts this way. God refuses to force himself on people. If someone refuses to be baptized, let him refuse. If someone already baptized insists on rejecting it later in life, he has that right as well. We are not to interfere with human free will where God himself refuses to interfere.
Then, too, there's this. After forcibly baptizing someone (and committing blasphemy thereby), said person is almost certainly going to turn around and reject the gift of God in sheer outrage, plus run as far away from Christianity as he can possibly get. Which is the opposite of what you were trying to accomplish. It's possible for them to do this because, as I mentioned, God refuses to override human free will that way; and if we do it in his name, we cannot expect supernatural help to get our way with the outcome.
Lamb Chopped
I do believer in outrageous grace, by the way, overcoming our worst and most obstinate intentions. And also that its operation may confound our human understanding. Seeing things that way should keep us humble. So I appreciate your explanations.
And as a Baptist I’m not outraged by them! God’s generosity is not bounded by human expectation. I think this is the point of the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Or the response of the Father of the Prodigal to the outrage of the other son.
Firstly, thank you @Lamb Chopped for your explanations. I'm still puzzled but can follow the logic.
I had wondered about the free-will element as, like the Lutherans it seems, we Orthodox don't believe that God 'forces' anyone to choose him as it were. I'm sure the Reformed would say that too.
Secondly, apologies @Nick Tamen, the only reason I raised the critique of Lutheranism from a Reformed writer was because I wondered whether differences between these traditions centred around the kind of issues @Lamb Chopped raised.
It was a clumsy thing for me to do and I should have phrased my question differently.
Thirdly, @Ex_Organist - I'd forgotten that story but then there are all sorts of stories in the hagiographies which challenge preconceptions and what we might call orthodox (small o) and Orthodox (Big O) norms or expectations.
I'm sure they are there deliberately as it were to demonstrate that we can't 'limit' God or out him in a box.
Scripture is full of such things also.
I s'pose inevitably, all these boil down, if boil down they can, to the both/and thing I constantly and unapologetically trot out.
'Synergia'.
Sacraments/ordinances are human actions yet God works in and through them.
We are not sock-puppets but neither can we save ourselves by our own efforts.
On particular occasions we Orthodox chant, 'As many as have been baptised into Christ (God's action) have put on Christ (our synergistic response), Hallelujah!'
Both/and.
Obviously we don't sing the words inside the brackets!
The 'invisibility' of 'intentionality' doesn't pose a problem in this sense as 'the word of God is living and active' and reveals 'the thoughts and intentions of the heart.'
To God, if not always to us.
'But we have the mind of Christ.'
Which brings me to another issue I was going to raise (not that these others are exhausted), which is the corporate aspect.
We are baptised into Christ. We put on Christ as it were. We are grafted into his Body. Ultimately we become by grace as he is by nature.
How do we understand the ecclesial aspects of the sacraments, the corporate dimension.
Most of those who are baptized in the Catholic church will not have really been aware of what has happened,given that most of them are babies,but there has to be on the other hand one or more responsible adults who take on the responsibility (parents and godparents).
It would seem however to be treating the sacraments as magic if one agreed that the mere fact that someone happened to utter words'I baptise you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit' while happening to pour water on the head of someone, would constitute a normal valid baptism,even if neither the baptizer nor the baptized were aware of what they were doing.
And yet of course we can count many actions which we carry out as bringing God's blessings to others,whether we count them as 'sacraments' in the way that the word is normally understood.
*I'm not aware of the Romanian Orthodox equivalent of "mishegas" but it's such a fitting word here that I had to borrow from Judaism. Also, one of my Jewish friends frequently refers to Evangelical behaviour as "mishegas" so I think it's valid.
It’s just an insulting opinionated generalisation when applied to any group, emanating typically from those who think they know better.
Plus it’s a kind of conversation stopper. What’s its value in this conversation?
I think the ecclesial dimension of the sacraments should be “offered on an open hand”. I understand the importance of protection within the corporate ecclesial community; also the risks of it degenerating into control.
Corporate vulnerability and humility are as much exemplary virtues as the responsible exercise of corporate authority. There is a lot from Jesus in the gospels about the misuse of corporate authority.
'Mishegas' doesn't even come close.
That said, I'm sure many US evangelicals and Protestants more generally would distance themselves from the crack-pot end of their particular spectrum.
Equally, if evangelicals and Protestants more generally were to come across some of the folk-religious practices, superstition and whacko conspiracy theories I've encountered among Orthodox Eastern Europeans they'd think, 'What the heck is Gamma Gamaliel getting into?!'
The mileage varies, as they say here, but in general I find that Romanians etc are familiar with RCs and what we might call more indigenous forms of Protestantism in their home countries but tend to assume that evangelicals, Pentecostals, JWs and Mormons are all dodgy imported cults.
Some assume that Anglicanism is an English form of Orthodoxy. Others are quite well informed about 'Western' forms of Christianity.
Ok. I wasn't thinking of 'protection' primarily but that does come into the communal dimension of course. One of the roles expected of the episcopacy is the 'guarding' and protection of the faith.
I'm happy to discuss the aspect you've raised of course.
But primarily I'm interested in how the 'communal' dimension- which is how I was using the term 'corporate' - which is related to 'corporal' of course, relating to the 'body' - works out in our respective communities.
But that’s hardly all Protestants or Evangelicals is it? The label doesn’t fit Bishop Mariann Budde - or Jim Wallis come to think of it.
Bad experiences with a subset doesn’t justify the labelling of the complete set. All generalisations are wrong including this one?
Where did anyone say that whacko fundamentalist evangelists are representative of Protestantism as a whole?
I've re-read my post and can't see where I said anything of the kind.
What I'm saying is that if the only exposure to evangelicalism people from certain countries get comes from the loopy end of the spectrum, it's understandable that they might put two and two together and make five.
I'm not saying it's right, far from it. But if there's a loopy fundamentalist evangelist running amok in your village and you didn't have any other contact with Protestantism other than that, it's going to affect how you might regard Protestantism in general.
Equally, if the only contact you have with Orthodoxy is some beardy-weirdy 'zealot' fulminating about obscure rubrics and issues around Calendars and denouncing the Pope as the Anti-Christ and all Protestants as hell-bound heretics then you might be forgiven for getting a bad impression of the Tradition they claim to represent.
I may have heard it here. I can't remember where I got wind of it.
The gist of it was as follows.
There were concerns in a particular place in Russia about the activities of American missionaries. They were accused of 'sheep-stealing' from Orthodox parishes.
A meeting was held between the evangelicals and Orthodox clergy and laity to seek some kind of resolution.
After some discussion and to everyone's astonishment one of the US evangelists knelt down and publicly repented of not treating the Orthodox as fellow believers.
The Orthodox bishop then knelt down and asked the evangelist's forgiveness for neglecting catechesis within the parishes under his care and allowing a formmof nominal Christianity to flourish.
@Barnabas62 - I didn't object to @Pomona's use of the term 'mishegas'. I understood what Pomona was getting at. Heck, I'd apply the term to some things that go on within 'cultural' and folk-religious forms of Orthodoxy. The belief in the 'evil-eye', the way some people approach the sacraments in a 'magical thinking' kind of way, tendencies towards phyletism and Erastianism etc etc etc.
I'm not saying the Romanian priest in the instance Pomona cites was right to think ill of Protestantism as a whole. But given the context I can understand it.
FWIW I've seen Romanian priests interject in online discussions to stop posters bad-mouthing Anglicans or other Christian confessions. Those Romanian priests I know have a very respectful attitude towards other Christian churches.
That is not the case in Romanian monasteries from what a monk has told me. He said that some of the older monks think anything 'Western' is 'demonic' and they only tolerate ecumenism because the Patriarch has told them they have to do so.
Heck, we don't have to go far to find evangelicals who might not accept that RCs or Orthodox are 'real' Christians - although that's certainly changing and has changed during my lifetime.
Anyhow, in the spirit of ecumenism I'm interested to hear how the 'communal' or 'corporate' aspects of sacraments/ordinances are understood within our respective Christian traditions and how that might link both to the 'pneumatic' and the personal/individual element.
I know you said it’s not mechanical, much less magical, but I have trouble seeing how it’s not as you’ve described it. Use water and say the right words, and God is summoned and baptisms happens, no matter what. I’m afraid I have a hard time with that.
My tradition would say only the church—the covenant community, the Body of Christ, into which the person is being baptized—can baptize. An individual cannot baptize unless authorized by the church to do so. If the action of the church is removed from the equation, whether we’re talking about a movie or play or kids playing in a ditch, then what’s happening isn’t a baptism.
Speaking as one who comes from a tradition that has and does teach perseverance of the saints, we would argue with the choosing bit, too! Perseverance of the saints is not “once you choose it, you can’t lose it”! It’s “God has chosen you, and God will remain faithful.” The doctrine of perseverance of the saints, like the Reformed understanding, is rooted in the conviction that God acts to choose us before we even think about choosing God.
Given that this is a thread that naturally raises questions about understandings of what sacraments or ordinances are, what they mean and how they “work,” I really don’t see how this is a tangent.
I would also question the extent to which most UK Protestants have heard of Bishop Mariann Budde or Jim Wallis. Of course they are well-known in terms of theological circles, but outside of places like the Ship and Greenbelt etc etc I don't think the average churchgoer is really up on that kind of thing - but of course it applies to all churches, it's not like the average RC is going to be reading Thomas Merton either.
In sacramental theology, intention refers to the minister’s will to perform the rite as Christ and the Church intend. For a sacrament to be valid, the minister must sincerely want to "do what the Church does," alongside using the correct matter (physical elements) and form (words)
That would seem to rule out dramas etc.
What I'm finding fascinating from an Orthodox perspective is how some of what @Lamb Chopped, @Nick Tamen and @Barnabas62 are saying overlap completely with where I'm coming from, only for a 'corner', an 'edge' or 'flap' to come loose elsewhere.
I daresay all three of them would say the same in reverse.
'Hmmm ... that accords with a Lutheran / Reformed or 'baptistic' understanding ... but that doesn't...'
So for instance, I find myself nodding in agreement with Nick Tamen over the ecclesial aspect, even though we might differ in aspects of ecclesiology.
Likewise, I'll nod along with Lamb Chopped on the common ground over God not 'forcing' people only to scratch my head in puzzlement over other aspects ...
I'm more familiar with @Barnabas62's tradition but feel we are 'talking past each other' to some extent.
Sure, there are parts of the Venn Diagram where we all overlap. But as soon as we tuck one part in, something else pops out of place somewhere else.
Which is why these debates have been going on since the Reformation of course, with some foreshadowings before that.
I'd say that Holy Tradition helps us reconcile all these apparent contradictions of course. But then, I would say that. 😉
But then there are different 'takes' on what constitutes Tradition otherwise the RCs and ourselves wouldn't continue to be sadly separated.
Anyhow @Nick Tamen has raised the important ecclesial dimension to all of this. Let's see where that takes us and where the discussion goes next.
On the question of magic: I'm not sure just what people are trying to convey when they say that a view of baptism is "magic" or "not magic." How does that differ from "mechanical" or "automatic"?
Taking my best guess, I think what is meant is "something that accomplishes a particular good purpose every time the action is taken, but we can't see how and it makes our brains hurt trying to figure out a mechanism for it."
If that's the case, I have no problem calling the sacraments "magic" AS LONG AS it's made clear, every time we use the word, that the reason the desired outcome happens is due to the faithful love and generosity of God.
The way Lutherans usually explain this is to say that God has bound himself by promise. In the case of the sacraments, he has said, "Do this, and I will do that." And since God is 100% faithful and keeps his promises all the time, it's really easy to mistake that situation for something that is "automatic" (self-generating without outside input) or "mechanical" (also self-generating).
That would be a huge mistake, to leave God out of the equation (so to speak). That leads to a silly, debased view of the sacraments--one where we can manipulate them how we please without fear of changing the results, or having other negative outcomes.
But since God IS involved, is in fact the prime actor in the sacraments, they belong to him, and the outcomes also belong to him, and he can do what he wants--including allowing various negative outcomes to happen to idiots who think they can "own" and control the sacraments for their own purposes. (For example, the utterly predictable anger of people forced into baptism, and whatever actions they take as a result.)
So, trying to answer this--
The problem here IMHO is the bit where "God is summoned." I'm good with that language if we take it in the same frame of mind as "a baby cries, and its parent is summoned" or "a child relies on a father's promise to pick it up after school, and the father is summoned." But I'm NOT good with it if what you're imagining is the "I'm a magician summoning a demon through my magical spell" trope. That's a case where the magician has power over the demon, and the demon has no choice but to obey.That's not the case with baptism or communion. There, the only thing we human beings have is a promise, not actual power.
And promises like these are made by the person-with-power to the person-in-need. The person possessing real power (the father picking up his child, God) makes a promise that the lesser person relies on. So in the sacraments, all the power and all the choice resides with God. He voluntarily bound himself with a promise; he voluntarily chooses to fulfill the promise, every single time. If he wished, he could choose to break that promise and we could do nothing about it. We have no power. He has it all.
But for our comfort, and because he loves us, he binds himself by promise. And his promises are as stable (or more so, really) than natural law--because he's just that kind of person.
...
Okay, taking it from another angle: what about those extreme edge cases, the film baptism or the two children playing in a ditch?
The longer I live with him, the more I'm convinced that God is utterly unscrupulous and has no concern for his own reputation. If someone accidentally gets baptized (speaking in human terms), God will absolutely take advantage of that to the full extend that he can (given his refusal to ride roughshod over human free will). I mean, that case I cited where Augustine's friend was baptized while unconscious when his parents had every reason to believe he would refuse it IF conscious. Today we'd call that immoral or at least unethical. But they did it, and by all the signs God took advantage of it. I could see him taking advantage of the film baptism or the ditch baptism as well. He's just like that, when it comes to blessing people.
It's not a license for us to run around behaving immorally or unethically, or even foolishly (which I'd argue is the case with the film baptism--it's not right to do that sort of thing for the sake of a movie. The children get off because of their age). But once the act is committed, yes, God can and will take advantage of it to bless, up to the limit of what the recipient allows him to do (because human free will).
That’s not quite what I mean. I mean something more like do the action and say the words, and no matter what, the result will happen. Kind of like the kids having a sleepover were just joking around, but they said “Bloody Mary” three times while looking in a mirror, and she showed up.
I’m good with that, but the question it raises for me is “to whom does God make that promise?” My answer would be “to the church, the community of the faithful.” So the promise from my perspective is “Do this, church, and I will do that.” If it’s not the church doing it, then God’s promises don’t come into play to start with.
That God may nevertheless act through it doesn’t make it a baptism. It makes God one who works through everything.
This is where I get caught up, because I really don’t see any meaningful difference between the view of baptism you’re describing and the magician. If anybody says the right words with the right action, God, who has promised and is faithful, essentially must obey, even if the baptism is just part of a play.
And when it’s part of a play (to belabor that example), it’s not like a baby crying. Its pretend.
To me, this isn’t a quite an apt comparison. Augustine’s friend was baptized in the manner authorized by the church. That he was unconscious is more like an infant who can’t answer.
It’s really not the same at all as a movie or play.
More seriously, I think @Nick Tamen is on the money with the ecclesial element. And yes, films and plays are 'pretend'.
I could get polemical and suggest that certain 'Western' emphases dichotomise and disaggregate things to the extent that the scriptures are uncoupled from Tradition, the sacraments from the Church ...
That would be unfair as there's an ecclesiology behind everything anyone's posted on this thread so far, and many of the views expressed are complementary rather than contradictory.
Whoops ... I'm both/and-ing again.
No photos or cards?
One of my kids attempted to drown me at a swimming pool after saying "let's do that thing like at church"!
My wife, when a small child, "baptised" her grandfather's dog (also in a swimming pool as it happens) as she worried about its eternal destiny.
I'm not sure I'd count either example as strictly valid...
I've heard, and witnessed it happening in both Baptist and Anglican circles. Or at least the individuals concerned were re-baptised at least once - I've no idea if it happened multiple times.
If you are litigating validity you have fallen into magical thinking.
Not that I know of.
Does that invalidate it?
😉
Whether those examples are valid or not, for those of us who believe that the sacraments (including baptism) have supernatural aspects, “magical” is a perfectly decent term (and not something negative that one “falls” into)—just an understatement, as the sacraments are, in our theology, superior to any kind of more “earthly” magic. And validity is certainly a relevant concern, whether one believes in infant baptism or not, for example.
He can. What I'm suggesting is more old-fashioned than, um, stupid!
I'm suggesting that it isn't right to show the whole of any religious rite as part of a play or movie. Bits of it, sure. Hint at the rest, sure. But I'm fairly sure this was common practice "in the olden days," possibly out of a gut feeling that such things ought not to be carried out for mere purposes of enjoyment/spectacle. Possibly there was also a sense of--shall we call it awe? a sense that you ought not mess with what is holy and powerful in quite that way?
And before somebody asks me, I'd be happy to stipulate the same for the rites of other religions.
How do we know that what we Westerners disdain as "magical thinking" or even outright magic is to be automatically treated as if there is no power in it, and therefore no damage to be done, however we handle it?
I know that's our worldview, but I've lived between worldviews for most of my life, and the greater part of the world does not agree with us.
I have my Hymns of Light and Love given to me by the elders and inscribed with the date. ( I was 16).
The Baptist church I later moved to accepted that baptism. The UCA never asked me about it, IIRR.
The reference of John The Baptist to some Pharisees as a brood of vipers would likely have been understood that baptism was not a magical act automatically conferring some state on a person.
I remember some missionaries relating that a village did their baptisms in the river, and those baptised entered on one bank and afterwards left on the other bank to symbolise their decision. The whole village would go to watch the baptisms, including those that had not professed their decision.
Lack of intent ?
'Of thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant: for I will not speak of Thy Mystery to thine enemies ...'
This carries an echo of how the early Christians used to keep the ritual 'to themselves' and as something particularly holy and, in a sense, 'exclusive', even though it is offered 'on behalf of all and for all.'
There are echoes of an antiquity where Christians worshipped in secret due to persecution and indeed we still retain the formulary whereby catechumens are ordered to leave at a certain point even though we don't boot them out these days.
Against that background we can understand how a sense of awe developed around the sacred Mysteries and that's entirely appropriate.
The Apostle Paul warned that there might even be fatal consequences for those who don't approach these things with due reverence. Yikes!
This can spill over into legalism and superstition of course. Romanians have told me of a priest they know in a rural area who found that people weren't coming to communion because a belief had developed that unless you had achieved an unfeasibly high level of sanctity beforehand you would die.
One day he took communion to a house-bound old lady who had not received the Holy Gifts for many years. Her neighbours expected her to keel over and die and were surprised that she suffered no ill effects. Gradually they began to receive communion themselves.
All sorts of local customs and practices can develop.
I've heard of Romanian priests who refuse communion to people who smoke, for instance.
RCs and Orthodox both believe that sacraments effect what they 'depict' or portray / convey.
It sounds like Lutherans believe the same.
How we 'do' these things may differ but we share a belief in the efficacy of sacraments/ordinances however many we recognise - two, seven or even none whatsoever.
There's an echo of this, I suggest in the lovely story @LatchKeyKid tells of people leaving the river in the opposite direction to the one they entered it to be baptised. It enacts the change they believe to have taken place, although they'd believe that the action testifies to that rather than effects it.
I agree with @Lamb Chopped that 'Western' ways of thinking can rob us of a sense of mystery in the full sense as it were. I'd suggest though - very carefully and tentatively - that a tendency to either overly 'automate' or overly 'mysticise' these things is itself a 'Western' tendency.
That's why we need the Orthodox concept of synergia - of human co-operation with the divine.
I'm not saying that the Orthodox have a monopoly on that. We see it in other Christian confessions too, of course.
What I am saying is that it helps us avoid the 'extreme' (in my view) view that Lamb Chopped has articulated about theatrical or filming depictions of baptism being 'actual' baptism simply because a particular formula is used.
It avoids extreme 'automatic' understandings of sacraments/ordinances or the sense they are magic spells.
It's like iconography. We know that icons consist of paint and egg-tempera etc on a wooden block or whatever else but we see them as 'windows to heaven' at one and the same time.
Yes, I believe that sacraments both convey and effect what they symbolise, depict and represent. They do that in a 'synergistic' way not some kind of robotic process.
I don't use an electron microscope to define where the divine element 'ends' or the human begins.
I accept the Mystery.
Through the Holy Mysteries I participate in those Mysteries.
I gradually undergo 'theosis' by the grace and mercy of Almighty God.
I become by grace as God is by nature.
Can that happen and does that happen with people who don't understand these things in the same way? Why not? God is God.
But if we believe the Church to be the Church (however defined) then it behoves us to gratefully receive the Holy Gifts God provides for us in that context.
That doesn't mean God can't or won't reach people elsewhere. It's not for us to determine how that works.
Equally, it's not for me to determine how people in other Christian traditions receive grace or understand and articulate these things - or those in non-Christian religions or of no faith whatsoever.
That's God's business. Not mine.
I guess for me the difficulty is dismissing a film or play as somehow inherently unfit to portray holy things, or that they are merely entertainment. When schools and churches put on Nativity plays for example, it's not just for fun.
Intent from whom? A sacrament is a sacred act to which God has freely added his promise, magic on the other hand is an attempt to control the spiritual world through ritual. They can have a superficial resemblance but are quite different.
It's easy to topple over into 'magical thinking' of course and those of us who worship in a more ritualised way have to be wary of that.
We Orthodox tend to do things in threes, for obvious Trinitarian reasons, but it's easy to see how that could be interpreted as some kind of 'magical' incantation.
We can find examples in most traditions. Extreme forms of Pentecostalism and 'name it and claim it' prosperity gospel movements can easily topple over into 'magical thinking' and the belief that we can manipulate divine action by particular prayers, practices and formularies.
We cannot manipulate divine grace.
God is entirely free. So are we who are made in his likeness and image and are being transformed into that also by his grace. Glory be to God in all things!
One learns so much on these boards. Until a few years ago I had never heard of 'Ordinance' (in the religious sense) and I think that Barnabas has only recently learned that there are such things as 'baptismal certificates'.
As far as I know neither of these words were used by Jesus but the word 'sacrament' as used by many Western Christians refer to a sacred oath made by Roman soldiers and taken on by Christians for the belief that God has promised to act in the rites which are called by many 'baptism' and 'eucharist'
'Ordinance' is another word,used by some Protestant Christians to refer to religious rituals which are believed to have been ''ordered' in the sense of 'commanded' by God
As we read often on these boards different words are used by different Christians to describe what they see as the words of the Gospels
Just think of names for the sharing of bread and wine
Divine Liturgy,Mass,Eucharist,Lord's Supper or as German Lutherans say 'Evening Meal' (Abendmahl). Scottish Presbyterians two or three centuries ago called it the 'Occasion'.
Even when Christians use the same words they will often have differing interpretations.
Many Christian groups accept the words of the Nicene Creed,including
(I believe in) ONE,HOLY,CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH
What does 'ONE' Church mean ?
What does 'HOLY Church mean ?
What does CATHOLIC Church mean ?
What does APOSTOLIC Church mean ?
And of course what does CHURCH mean ?
About the only thing they probably all agree on is the word 'AND'
(Though the great Protestant theologian,Karl Barth, is reputed to have said,perhaps jokingly, that the major difference between the Catholic Church and those of the Protestant Reformation is the word 'AND')
I first encountered Orthodoxy through someone who used to post here. Many years ago now.
I've also learned more about the Reformed tradition here too. I'd only encountered either full-on TULIP neo-Calvinist types or more liberal URC types and wasn't aware of the nuances and shades in between.
I'd met one or two American Lutherans and German Lutherans but not really discussed theology with them, so most of what I know about it comes from the Ship.
There are also things about Roman Catholicism I'd not known about until someone mentioned them here.
Everyday a schoolday.
Adjusting attitude and behaviour takes longer of course.
Lord have mercy!
Glory be to God in all things and through all who post here.
There's a logic to that of course given a 'sola fide' approach - grace through faith and not by works lest any of us should boast.
However...
What Google and AI also tell me is that there is a difference between 'validity' and 'efficacy' and whilst such a baptism would be considered valid, its efficacy for the recipient would depend on their faith.
So, are we back with 'synergia' after all?
Hoo boy.
I've been reluctant to disagree with @Lamb Chopped who is far more generous and available with responses concerning Lutheranism. However, what she has posted here does not accord completely with my understanding of the theology of Baptism.
In my understanding, Baptism occurs in the context of faith. Luther, Small Catechism, The Sacrament of Holy Baptism, III: "How can water do such great things? Clearly the water does not do it, but the word of God, which is with and alongside the water, and faith, which trusts this word of God in the water." [italics mine]
The baptism of Augustine's friend was done in the context of faith, as is the baptism of infants and others unable to answer for themselves. A sponsor or sponsors answer, in good faith, when the person is unable to respond for themselves.
If it were not so, it would be incumbent on Lutherans to take firehoses and buckets to every street corner in the world, and wet people down while shouting the Trinitarian formula! Why would you not want every possible human to have the gracious gift of baptism? But such behaviour would be assaultive, not gracious, because there is no context of faith - no sponsor, or of course the person answering that they do indeed desire baptism before it happens.
Consent matters.
I hasten to say that such consent is a gift of the Holy Spirit, faith meeting faith. Lutherans do not believe in 'synergia' - that I can assert confidently of all Lutheran bodies. Following Augustine, we have a negative theological anthropology. We would say we cannot choose the good; that would be the Holy Spirit acting in and through us. Human will and human reason are not viewed the same as in other Christian perspectives.
The Orthodox would say that the Lutherans, and the RCs from which they derived, ratcheted some of Augustine's emphases to some extent, of course.
We still regard St Augustine as 'one of ours' but trace an influence from him via Anselm and Aquinas to the Reformers that we find somewhat 'over-egged'.
Again, I'm no expert and not all Orthodox theologians are as negative about Aquinas as others.
I may start a new thread on 'synergia'.
It can be misrepresented as 'salvation by works' just as some Reformation emphases can be misrepresented as suggesting that there is no place for 'good works' or human effort.
The Virgin Mary's response, 'Let it be done to me according to your word,' is seen as a paradigmatic example of 'synergia' of course.
As @Gamma Gamaliel says, a crucial point. And one I agree with.
I asked to be baptised. Even at that time, when I had genuine and general problems with just about any authority, I knew I had to ask. I remember a friendly conversation with a church elder about why I wanted to be baptised. Can’t for the life of me remember any details. I know it was a kind of a triage! And thought it was wise thing to do.
Rather like the provision re communion of the need to know what you’re doing, I knew that applied to believer’s baptism as well. Personal responsibility and church responsibility were met together. There was a mutual sincerity in the asking and the accepting.
Oh. I’m sure there was a fair deal of ignorance mixed in with the sincerity! “By Grace through Faith” is a gift from God. Which oversees all the human elements.
Okay, I'm going to agree with some of that and maybe disagree with a bit more. Yes, we do in fact ask sponsors/godparents to answer for the child as if the child had faith already and was requesting baptism. So far, we agree.
However... I would suggest that the confession of faith that is made in the infant's name is done with respect to the faith that the Holy Spirit is during this very action creating in the infant's heart. It's not the sponsor's faith (though that is very important for other reasons) but the child's actual faith. Which could possibly wind us up in a time tangle--when exactly is the child a believer, at what point in the baptismal event?--but Lutheranism doesn't encourage us to fuss about such matters and try to dig into details God has not disclosed to us.
Why do I say it is the child's actual faith, and not the sponsor's faith or the church's faith or what have you? Because the confession of faith is done in the child's own person. "I do renounce them. ... I believe..." and so forth. It's not "As a sponsor, I believe, and therefore request baptism for this child." That would be the appropriate wording if all rested on the sponsor's faith. But it doesn't.
Now, as for why we don't just take a firehose to the general population in the name of the Father, etc. We don't do that for the same reason that we don't indiscriminately baptize every infant presented to us. We want to know that the family has some intention of raising this child in the Christian faith. If not the immediate family, then a Christian sponsor who is willing and able to undertake the child's Christian education. It makes no sense to plant a seed and then allow it to die for lack of watering. In fact, you could argue that doing so is downright harmful, as there's a really good chance that the newborn faith will wither over the next twenty years or so of zero Christian nurture, PLUS the adult who has been treated so is likely to dismiss any efforts to evangelize him or her in the future--"Oh, I was baptized when I was six months old" (with a strong overtone of "been there, done that, don't bother me about Jesus"). In my opinion, which is shared by other Lutherans I know, it would be better to leave such a child unbaptized for now, in the hopes that it will encounter the Gospel message later in its life and come for baptism then.
Similarly the passers-by who are being threatened with a baptismal firehose--no. We don't do that, first because it's rude and not how God operates, overriding human free will--but also because that kind of behavior means that whatever newborn faith the Holy Spirit manages to plant in such hearts will almost certainly be destroyed by the understandable backlash to our bad behavior--and by the lack of Christian teaching and nurture.