Sattler College Turmoil

[brothereicher]

This is a legitimate point of disagreement, by which I mean, I understand where the contention comes from, and why people feel the way that they do.

And if someone realizes that they are on this side, and Sattler is on that side, it makes sense to conclude that Sattler isn't a place you want to be.

P.S. I should add that Sattler doesn't speak to the baptisms of its students, but many students do attend FOTW churches as a result of being at Sattler, and therefore Sattler is the indirect cause of the subject coming up.

And this effectively swirls the argument back to an Anabaptist church not being “blessed” by Finny causing the conflict.

And THAT'S the rabbit hole I'm absolutely not going down.

[Szdfan]

As far as the source of salvation, of course we believe that salvation comes from Jesus. He uses the means of baptism to make His saving grace available to us, just like we believe that marriage is an act performed by God. (The preacher and the state don't make marriage happen.) But God brings marriage to pass through the rite of matrimony, which is a human action. A sacrament is something we do that has a supernatural effect.

Does this mean that FOTW would consider a couple that's not legally married but committed (i.e. domestic partnership) to be married?

[brothereicher]

As far as the source of salvation, of course we believe that salvation comes from Jesus. He uses the means of baptism to make His saving grace available to us, just like we believe that marriage is an act performed by God. (The preacher and the state don't make marriage happen.) But God brings marriage to pass through the rite of matrimony, which is a human action. A sacrament is something we do that has a supernatural effect.

Does this mean that FOTW would consider a couple that's not legally married but committed (i.e. domestic partnership) to be married?

Based on their practices in Uganda, I'd say no. The sacrament of marriage hasn't taken place in a domestic partnership. With that said, I don't think I'd put great stress on "legal marriage," because that's a whole other issue.

Imagine a government that ceases to recognize the marital state. This wouldn't make the sacrament of marriage cease to exist.

[Szdfan]

As far as the source of salvation, of course we believe that salvation comes from Jesus. He uses the means of baptism to make His saving grace available to us, just like we believe that marriage is an act performed by God. (The preacher and the state don't make marriage happen.) But God brings marriage to pass through the rite of matrimony, which is a human action. A sacrament is something we do that has a supernatural effect.

Does this mean that FOTW would consider a couple that's not legally married but committed (i.e. domestic partnership) to be married?

Based on their practices in Uganda, I'd say no. The sacrament of marriage hasn't taken place in a domestic partnership. With that said, I don't think I'd put great stress on "legal marriage," because that's a whole other issue.

Imagine a government that ceases to recognize the marital state. This wouldn't make the sacrament of marriage cease to exist.

So I'm confused. Who is performing this sacrament if the preacher and the state have nothing to do with it?

[brothereicher]

Does this mean that FOTW would consider a couple that's not legally married but committed (i.e. domestic partnership) to be married?

Based on their practices in Uganda, I'd say no. The sacrament of marriage hasn't taken place in a domestic partnership. With that said, I don't think I'd put great stress on "legal marriage," because that's a whole other issue.

Imagine a government that ceases to recognize the marital state. This wouldn't make the sacrament of marriage cease to exist.

So I'm confused. Who is performing this sacrament if the preacher and the state have nothing to do with it?

In general, a preacher will be the one to perform it.
However, assuming extraordinary circumstances, such as a state that doesn't recognize the institution of marriage, any member of the community could officiate.

That's one of the markers of sacraments. They aren't generally something that's just for the individual, they have a communal element.

And, yes, if a man and a woman washed up on a desert island and there was no one for a thousand miles around and they wanted to marry one another, they probably could without anyone else to officiate or recognize their union, but that's so far outside the bounds of normal practice and life that it doesn't have a bearing on the normal use or practice of sacraments.

[Szdfan]

Based on their practices in Uganda, I'd say no. The sacrament of marriage hasn't taken place in a domestic partnership. With that said, I don't think I'd put great stress on "legal marriage," because that's a whole other issue.

Imagine a government that ceases to recognize the marital state. This wouldn't make the sacrament of marriage cease to exist.

So I'm confused. Who is performing this sacrament if the preacher and the state have nothing to do with it?

In general, a preacher will be the one to perform it.
However, assuming extraordinary circumstances, such as a state that doesn't recognize the institution of marriage, any member of the community could officiate.

That's one of the markers of sacraments. They aren't generally something that's just for the individual, they have a communal element.

And, yes, if a man and a woman washed up on a desert island and there was no one for a thousand miles around and they wanted to marry one another, they probably could without anyone else to officiate or recognize their union, but that's so far outside the bounds of normal practice and life that it doesn't have a bearing on the normal use or practice of sacraments.

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

[brothereicher]

The square brackets were to give the context which was in the context of him explaining his early church views in baptism regeneration. I cannot remember enough of the context to type it out word for word.

It is entirely possible those views have changed.

So, let’s ask the question outright:

Does FotW believe that full immersion baptism is required for salvation?

Absolutely not.

Source:
I was baptized by my Beachy bishop at the age of 19. The baptism, as the Beachy mode is, was by pouring. I am a member in good standing at FOTW, and have been for about six months. In that time, there hasn't been even the slightest hint that my baptism was invalid or that I wasn't saved because the mode was incorrect or ahistorical.

The Didache and the EC recognized pouring as legitimate forms of baptism, although immersion in living water was strongly preferred.

I would be the first in line to find the exit if my adult baptism were called into question over mode.

FOTW does unapologetically teach baptismal regeneration, that is, that baptism confers real grace on the recipient and is the ordinary means for the remission of sins. We recognize that God's grace is bound to the sacraments, but that God Himself is not bound by the sacrament, meaning that He is able to save outside the ordinary means.

Hope this helps.

When I last spoke with FOTW about this...I don't believe they were embracing the term "baptismal regeneration" as they associated the finer points of that term with Catholicism - and their theories around the saving power of infant baptism. Is this still the case?

I think there would be some internal debate about whether that term is too loaded to use.

I don't think MM makes any bones about calling it baptismal regeneration.

[Ken]

Based on their practices in Uganda, I'd say no. The sacrament of marriage hasn't taken place in a domestic partnership. With that said, I don't think I'd put great stress on "legal marriage," because that's a whole other issue.

Imagine a government that ceases to recognize the marital state. This wouldn't make the sacrament of marriage cease to exist.

So I'm confused. Who is performing this sacrament if the preacher and the state have nothing to do with it?

In general, a preacher will be the one to perform it.
However, assuming extraordinary circumstances, such as a state that doesn't recognize the institution of marriage, any member of the community could officiate.

That's one of the markers of sacraments. They aren't generally something that's just for the individual, they have a communal element.

And, yes, if a man and a woman washed up on a desert island and there was no one for a thousand miles around and they wanted to marry one another, they probably could without anyone else to officiate or recognize their union, but that's so far outside the bounds of normal practice and life that it doesn't have a bearing on the normal use or practice of sacraments.

Many countries separate civil and religious marriage. In most of Latin America the civil marriage is simply the legal signing of the marriage contract before a magistrate or clerk. Whereas the religious ceremony is strictly religious. And the two are often separated by months. The US is perhaps a bit unusual in that religious authorities are authorized to act on behalf of the state and it is the minister who signs the state's official marriage license if it is a religious ceremony. So in the US, you could have any of the following options.

• Common law marriage for which no license exists but that some states will recognize
• Civil marriage done at the courthouse with no religious ceremony
• Religious ceremony performed by the church or denomination in which the members attend
• Religious ceremony performed by some other denomination or faith in the case of converts or mixed marriages

Which of the above would FOTW recognize? Would say a legally married Hindu couple who converted need to get remarried in a Christian ceremony? What about a secular couple who got legally married in a civil ceremony and is now joining the church. Is there secular marriage recognized or do they need to get remarried in the church?

[brothereicher]

So I'm confused. Who is performing this sacrament if the preacher and the state have nothing to do with it?

In general, a preacher will be the one to perform it.
However, assuming extraordinary circumstances, such as a state that doesn't recognize the institution of marriage, any member of the community could officiate.

That's one of the markers of sacraments. They aren't generally something that's just for the individual, they have a communal element.

And, yes, if a man and a woman washed up on a desert island and there was no one for a thousand miles around and they wanted to marry one another, they probably could without anyone else to officiate or recognize their union, but that's so far outside the bounds of normal practice and life that it doesn't have a bearing on the normal use or practice of sacraments.

Many countries separate civil and religious marriage. In most of Latin America the civil marriage is simply the legal signing of the marriage contract before a magistrate or clerk. Whereas the religious ceremony is strictly religious. And the two are often separated by months. The US is perhaps a bit unusual in that religious authorities are authorized to act on behalf of the state and it is the minister who signs the state's official marriage license if it is a religious ceremony. So in the US, you could have any of the following options.

• Common law marriage for which no license exists but that some states will recognize
• Civil marriage done at the courthouse with no religious ceremony
• Religious ceremony performed by the church or denomination in which the members attend
• Religious ceremony performed by some other denomination or faith in the case of converts or mixed marriages

Which of the above would FOTW recognize? Would say a legally married Hindu couple who converted need to get remarried in a Christian ceremony? What about a secular couple who got legally married in a civil ceremony and is now joining the church. Is there secular marriage recognized or do they need to get remarried in the church?

Just to be clear, I'm speaking as a recently joined member, so I can't speak authoritatively, but I have had a lot of conversations about these issues before joining, so while I have a high degree of confidence that these responses are correct, I can't and don't claim to be speaking as the mouthpiece of FOTW.

Common law would not be recognized.
Civil without religious would.
Religious without civil would probably be expected to obtain a legal recognition for the sake of testimony.

Marriages of unbelievers are certainly recognized, given our position of divorce and remarriage.

This formulation of the validity of sacraments isn't FOTW's wording, but I certainly think it's in the spirit of our understanding of the issues.

In order for a sacrament to be valid, there must be the right "ingredients." For example, in baptism, the person must be an adult human; in marriage, there must be two human adults of the opposite sex. Secondly, there must be intent. A couple in a rom-com who say the words don't become married. Quietly saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," while pushing someone into a pond wouldn't baptize them. Third, there must be the desire to enact what the church enacts through the rite. This intent doesn't have to be explicit. In other words, the officiant at a Hindu wedding need not be thinking, "I'm trying to give them the sacrament of marriage." But the Hindu officiant, or the officiant at the courthouse IS intending to do the exact same thing that we are intending to do in a wedding, to join two people together and make them one. So any time that those factors exists, we recognize those marriages.

This precludes the recognition of child marriages, because the right ingredients and intent can't exist with a child.

[joshuabgood]

Absolutely not.

Source:
I was baptized by my Beachy bishop at the age of 19. The baptism, as the Beachy mode is, was by pouring. I am a member in good standing at FOTW, and have been for about six months. In that time, there hasn't been even the slightest hint that my baptism was invalid or that I wasn't saved because the mode was incorrect or ahistorical.

The Didache and the EC recognized pouring as legitimate forms of baptism, although immersion in living water was strongly preferred.

I would be the first in line to find the exit if my adult baptism were called into question over mode.

FOTW does unapologetically teach baptismal regeneration, that is, that baptism confers real grace on the recipient and is the ordinary means for the remission of sins. We recognize that God's grace is bound to the sacraments, but that God Himself is not bound by the sacrament, meaning that He is able to save outside the ordinary means.

Hope this helps.

When I last spoke with FOTW about this...I don't believe they were embracing the term "baptismal regeneration" as they associated the finer points of that term with Catholicism - and their theories around the saving power of infant baptism. Is this still the case?

I think there would be some internal debate about whether that term is too loaded to use.

I don't think MM makes any bones about calling it baptismal regeneration.

Thanks for that clarification. Personally...after discussing this at length (with Finny and Matthew on various occasions and closely reading the great exchanged between FOTW and SOT) and the many "possible contexts," I personally don't feel there is much practical difference between the theologies. The more practical difference is...around the question at what age a person should be to fully grasp the import of baptism and conversion. On that question, I am very sympathetic to their position, however, precisely because I don't subscribe to baptismal regeneration. In other words, since I don't worry about my 15 year old child being damned forever for having missed regenerative baptism, I don't worry about advising them to wait for such a momentous decision to make it as an adult. It actually feels to me that in some ways the pushing down of the baptismal age in CA circles in the last 50 years, combined with the baby dedications, are an indication of an increasing practical subscription to a baptismal regenerative philosophy of sorts. In other words it almost feels we need to make sure the kids get baptized and saved quickly so "they aren't lost." My son I advised to wait until he was an adult...he was baptized at 18, near 19. When I heard what he said (without any help from me) at his baptismal testimony, I felt confirmed in my advice to him.

All that said, I have some humility about the fact that men of God and various Christian traditions have seen the age of baptism differently. And the scriptural teachings do not in fact anywhere directly state age ideals. I know all the arguments for and against...and there are competing valid points. Still...I lean with adult baptism.