General basis for a "valid" baptism

Scott1 · #1 (**permalink**) 08-22-2008, 05:52 PM

As this is an issue that needs to be handled with great care, it would be helpful to hear from people who are theologically trained on this topic.

I prefer to hear from the point of view of those who hold to infant baptism so as to not focus on the "paedo" v. "credo" discussions going on in other threads.

This requires some theological expertise, and will help many of us who are searching this out now.

Quote:

1) Does a valid baptism require a "true" church?

2) For purposes of a valid baptism, what constitutes a "true" church?

3) What exactly is an (orthodox) "trinitarian" baptism?

4) Is absolutely nothing beyond an (orthodox) trinitarian doctrine required for a valid baptism?

5) Must a "true" church hold to the Gospel?

6) Must a "true" church hold to the authority of Scripture?

Pergamum · #2 (**permalink**) 08-22-2008, 08:09 PM

One Reformed Baptist's perspective:

A true baptism is a baptism that is done to disciples in the name of the Trinity for right motives.

Irregular baptisms would be baptisms done by wrong mode (sprinkling or pouring).

Yet irregular baptisms could still be valid.

Invalid (i.e. not baptisms) baptisms would be baptisms done not in the proper name (the Trinity), done to unregenerate persons or done for motives such as salvation or the washing away of original sin (i.e. Catholic baptisms).

Scott1 · #3 (**permalink**) 08-23-2008, 02:37 PM

This is a challenging question, one to be handled with great care.

Another way to look at this is...

Does a Christian baptism require only that it be done with a Trinitarian pronouncement at the time the baptism is performed
or
Does it require the church administering it have a complete biblical Trinitarian doctrine
or
Does it require that the church administering it be a "true" church, and if so, what are the irreducible doctrines of a "true" church?

yeutter · #4 (**permalink**) 08-23-2008, 07:02 PM

st Augustine of Hippo dealt with the question of valid baptism. The Donatist and Novation Baptisms he held to be valid because they were administered using water, using the Biblical wording, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with Trinitarian intent. Arian Baptisms, where their is not Trinitarian intent, he held to be invalid even if the right words were used.