Contrary to Harvey Mozolak, the standard Lutheran understanding of baptism does not insist that everybody holds to the complete Lutheran understanding of baptism, its nature, practice and benefits, for there to be a valid baptism. What was necessary for a baptism to be valid is a following of Jesus' instituting command, to apply water in God's name. Thus when baptism is practiced in Trinitarian churches the baptism is considered valid even if their understanding of what happens in baptism and benefits of baptism differ from ours. When baptism is practiced in a non-Trinitarian church, such as the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, the referent of the words used for God's name is different and therefor no baptism.
To illustrate, when I am being seen by my doctor, if someone pokes their nose into the room and asks for Dan, both us would respond since his first name is the same as mine. But just because that name could be applied to either of us does not mean that we are the same person. Similarly, even though a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness might use the same words to refer to God in baptism, they are not referring to the same entity as a Christian would.
Interestingly, while we Lutherans would generally consider a baptism performed in a Baptist church to be a valid baptism, they would not consider ours valid.
With the Lord's Supper, it becomes more complicated. Again there is the application of Jesus' words to the material element. It could be discussed how much variance there can be as to the material element used, as Bivens in the article indicated. Bread, leavened or unleavened, wheat or other grain (to for example avoid gluten); wine, fruit of the grape vine but fermented or not, alcoholic or nonalcoholic? Some variation has been deemed permissible but I suspect that for most of us Diet Coke and potato chips would stretch things too far. As for the Word from Jesus - here there has been great and heated debate. The two extremes would have that what Jesus said indicated that the bread and wine changed into His body and blood and were no longer in essence bread and wine. At the other extreme would be that in the sacrament as Jesus instituted it the bread and wine are only symbolic of His body and blood. A great many shades of belief lie between.
Once again, the question begs to be asked what the reality is to which those words refer. If the reality that a group believes the words
to
refer varies from what Jesus intended them to refer, at what point does that variance become a different reality being referred to and therefore no longer Jesus' words being applied to the material elements but a different sacrament and thus no sacrament at all. We in the LCMS and you in the ELCA have come to draw that line in different places as well as interpreting Paul's warning about not discerning the Body of Christ differently.
Would it be arrogant for Pr. Stoffregen to assert that we in the LCMS have gotten it wrong as to what it means to discern the Body of Christ in the sacrament and thus apply Paul's warning wrongly? Would it be arrogant for us in the LCMS to assert that Pr. Stoffregen and those in the ELCA who agree with his interpretation have gotten it wrong? Are we both to be considered right?
