I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
If someone dying asked a Mormon to give him an emergency Christian baptism. The fact that it was performed despite Mormon beliefs would demonstrate sufficient intent.
No, that is incorrect. The divine nature cannot be shared with created beings. The Arians and Nicene Christians all agreed upon that point (that was in fact part of the Arian and especially the Eunomian argument against Nicene Christianity). The homoiousians used the homoiousian formula in order to stress that the Word, while a creature, was not a creature like any other creature, putting the word in a middle position between the uncreated Father and the world. But still, their use of the term homoiousion as opposed to homoousion did not at all imply a consubstantial sharing with the Father like the homoousian formulation does.
That is exactly what you seem to have been implying, that confessions using the term homoiousion did not invalidate baptisms because they could still be interpreted as meaning that the Word was divine. But this does not hold, because even deified saints can be called divine and gods (by grace) in Greek, and yet it would still be an equally disastrous trinitarian heresy to call the word divine and god in this sense, as it would be to deny that the Word is divine at all. There is no qualitative difference, in this respect, because both formulations deny that the Word of God is uncreated and God in the sense of being the One God to Whom worship is due.Then why did they accept the Baptism of the “Arians?” I am trying to theorize a reason, but the only response you have given is to assume I am saying the Arians were not heretics.
Because there is nothing more frustrating than seeing unsubstantiated opinions being presented as factual. If one is going to make assertions, he should be prepared to back them up with at least some primary sources, although secondary sources are far better for a medium like a forum, because they are peer-reviewed.
I am not conceding anything. Baptisms with invalid form cannot be considered to be valid, even out of economy. This is basic sacramental theology, something that is held in common between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, that sacraments with invalid form are not valid, and cannot simply be declared to be valid. Beer cannot be used for the Eucharist, nor can men be validly baptized into the death of Jesus, no matter what the theological intent for doing so might be.
That is the point I have been trying to make. Having a defective Trinitarian theology is not in itself automatically grounds for declaring the baptism of a group to be invalid (as we can see with the Arians). Having, however, improper intent (at least for Roman Catholics), is grounds for declaring the baptism of a group to be invalid, and that is the reason why Mormon baptisms are defective, because Mormons do not intend to give the same baptism as the Roman Catholic Church gives, which would be unlike the Arians, who despite blaspheming the Word by calling Him a creature, still intended to confer the same baptism and burial with Christ for the remission of sins as the Nicene Christians did.
From a non-Mormon view, of course.
Right, exactly. And at least one poster has been using the argument that Arians are, essentially, less non-Trinitarian than Latter-day Saints. To me, they are still non-Trinitarian, so I don’t see how that argument is valid to those that believe that it is necessary to have the correct Trinitarian theology. He also kept bringing up the fact that the Arians were heretics, however never explaining the relevance of that to the issue of whether correct Trinitarian theology is necessary for a valid baptism (which he stated is necessary).
Right, from our view, only those ordained to the priesthood may validly baptize (or perform any sacred ordinances for that matter).
Right, she would not see herself as authorized from the Latter-day Saint perspective, however, I’d assume she’d respect the wishes of the dying person for an emergency baptism, even though she didn’t believe in its efficacy or necessity. I’d assume this would be the same for any non-Catholic Christian or non-Christian (I’ve read that atheists are also allowed to perform emergency baptisms, with proper matter, form, and intent), whether or not they believed in the efficacy or necessity of the emergency baptism. I know I would.
I am of course speaking about extraordinary circumstances. I would hope that a Mormon asked to perform an emergency baptism would not falter. In fact, I’d hope he or she was so moved by witnessing a true baptism, literally first hand, that he or she would me moved to convert.
“Heretics” means that the group is materially Christian, albeit extremely unorthodox. The Mormons are not materially Christian, because their baptisms do not confer grace to transform the soul. Their baptism merely mimics a true Christian baptism.Right, exactly. And at least one poster has been using the argument that Arians are, essentially, less non-Trinitarian than Latter-day Saints. To me, they are still non-Trinitarian, so I don’t see how that argument is valid to those that believe that it is necessary to have the correct Trinitarian theology. He also kept bringing up the fact that the Arians were heretics, however never explaining the relevance of that to the issue of whether correct Trinitarian theology is necessary for a valid baptism (which he stated is necessary).
Yes, to me it kind of seems like a chicken-and-the-egg problem.
No, there are two reasons. The second you have failed to recognize.
I would think from the article to be materially Christian would require a belief in one God; Mormons believe in at least three.
The Arians must have generally believed in one God; Mormons believe in three gods.
No, I have not “failed to recognize” anything. What I am interested in, and focused on discussing, is the necessity of belief in the orthodox Trinity for a valid baptism. What is clear from this thread is that there isn’t agreement amongst Catholics (at least in this thread) as to whether belief in the orthodox/traditional Trinity doctrine is necessary in this matter. Some say it is required, others say it can’t be based on the example of the Arians.
So would Jehovah’s Witnesses be considered “materially Christian” (I’ve seen a number of traditional Christians refer to them as “modern day Arians”)? What about Oneness Pentecostals, Modalists, etc? Are/were they all “materially Christian”?
Baptizing to three different gods, like the Mormons do, is not Christian
Do Jehovah Witness, Modalist, and Oneness Pentecostals believe in one God or three as the Mormons do?
First they would have to believe there is only one God, not three like the Mormons do.
."while the Mormons see it as "three gods which form one divinity
This has nothing to do with the portion of my post that you were responding to.
“So would Jehovah’s Witnesses be considered “materially Christian” (I’ve seen a number of traditional Christians refer to them as “modern day Arians”)? What about Oneness Pentecostals, Modalists, etc? Are/were they all “materially Christian”?”
So “Is there a formal definition of “materially Christian” somewhere?”
Which, again, has nothing to do with the portion of my post that you were responding to.
It has a lot to do with your posts. To be considered a Christian you must first believe in one God (three persons in ONE divine being). There are many, many different ways to explain and believe the who, whats and whens of the one triune God. One of those ways is Orthodoxy. Mormonism fails the first test, they believe in three gods.
-I asked you if there is a formal definition of “materially Christian”. Do you have an answer?
I don’t know if Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in one god are not. Yes, to be materially Christian one needs to believe in one God, and, presumably, because Arians believed in one God, they are “materially Christian”
Yes, I believe a heretical Christian group, which does not hold to the orthodox Trinity, can perform a valid baptism provided they use correct matter, form, and intent.
The JW’s I know believe in one god, but lack belief in the Holy Spirit as part of God, merely as an energy flowing out from God.
