A
AugustTherese
Guest
Jesus baptized using the ‘Baptism of John’?AugustTherese:
Baptism of John.
Not sacramental baptism.
- Status
M
MCH1
Guest
I had always thought that his case was an example of perfect contrition…
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
The Old Testament saints (sort of).
G
Gorgias
Guest
Two thoughts:
(1) Jesus didn’t baptize. Read your quote of John 4 a bit more carefully.
(2) Yes. Prior to Jesus’ death and resurrection, there was no sacrament of baptism that was celebrated. Think about it: if there was the sacrament of baptism, and a person died in a state of grace prior to Jesus’ death and resurrection, wouldn’t they merit heaven? (Unlike those who were in the ‘Bosom of Abraham’, who were righteous but could not attain to heaven on their own.) . But, we know that Jesus ‘opened the gates of heaven’ after His death. So… either the sacrament does what it does, or it doesn’t. We can only resolve this issue if we recognize that the celebration of the sacraments by the Church only began after the Passion and Resurrection of Christ.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptized.
John 3:22
G
Gorgias
Guest
John 4 clarifies this statement. Note that, in the context of John 3, the baptisms happen “in the Judean region”, and that, in the context of John 4, Jesus leaves Judea.
John 4, therefore, clarifies: in Judea, it was Jesus’ disciples – not Jesus – who were baptizing.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Now a discussion about purification arose between John’s disciples and a Jew. They came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to him.’AugustTherese:
John 4 clarifies this statement. Note that, in the context of John 3, the baptisms happen “in the Judean region”, and that, in the context of John 4, Jesus leaves Judea.
John 4, therefore, clarifies: in Judea, it was Jesus’ disciples – not Jesus – who were baptizing.
John 3:25-26
You are equivocating to the point where you cannot accept the fact that Our Lord and His disciples were baptizing; before the death and resurrection of Our Lord and way before Pentecost.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Nah. I get it – neither of us wants to let go of the argument. But hey, if you can’t accept what John 4 says about the events of John 3, then I guess we disagree about who’s ‘equivocating.’
In any case, we’re getting away from the point: sacramental baptism by the Church did not begin until after Christ’s resurrection.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
If you’re trying to tell me that the disciples baptized and Our Lord did not, I think you might need to rethink your position.AugustTherese:
Nah. I get it – neither of us wants to let go of the argument. But hey, if you can’t accept what John 4 says about the events of John 3, then I guess we disagree about who’s ‘equivocating.’
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
I’m trying to tell you that Scripture is pretty explicit in what it claims, in contradiction to what you’re claiming:
“Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, just his disciples), he left Judea and returned to Galilee.” (John 4:1-3)
It’s not that difficult a case to make. Jesus was ‘baptizing’ inasmuch as His disciples were doing the baptizing – they ascribed the baptisms to Jesus, since He was the one instructing his disciples, and it was to Him that people were therefore flocking. Doesn’t mean that Jesus was physically doing it Himself. You literally have to throw away John 4 (and its reference to the actions in John 3) to make the assertion you’re making.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
“But we must believe that the disciples of Christ were already baptized themselves, either with John’s baptism, or, as is more probable, with Christ’s. For He who had stooped to the humble service of washing His disciples’ feet, had not failed to administer baptism to His servants, who would thus be enabled in their turn to baptize others.” - Saint Augustine
“ The question is often asked, whether the Holy Ghost was given by the baptism of the disciples; when below it is said, The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. We reply, that the Spirit was given, though not in so manifest a way as he was after the Ascension, in the shape of fiery tongues. For, as Christ Himself in His human nature ever possessed the Spirit, and yet afterwards at His baptism the Spirit descended visibly upon Him in the form of a dove; so before the manifest and visible coming of the Holy Spirit, all saints might possess the Spirit secretly.” - Saint Alcuin
G
Gorgias
Guest
Do you have a link to the context in which he wrote this? After all, Augustine could be claiming that Jesus baptized them after His resurrection, and that would be just fine.Gorgias:
“But we must believe that the disciples of Christ were already baptized themselves, either with John’s baptism, or, as is more probable, with Christ’s. For He who had stooped to the humble service of washing His disciples’ feet, had not failed to administer baptism to His servants, who would thus be enabled in their turn to baptize others.” - Saint Augustine
But, if you want to have an Augustine quote duel, then let’s have at it:
In other words, what I just said a couple of posts ago: Jesus didn’t physically baptize. In his tracts on the Gospel of John, Augustine agrees with me. (Woot!)
Alcuin? Seriously? That’s how far you had to reach?
Yeah… to assent to that, I guess I have to ignore Scripture yet again:
John 7:37-39:
Man… you must really hate the Gospel of John, eh?
G
Gorgias
Guest
LOL! It just dawned on me: did you lift these quotes from the Catena Aurea? The Augustine and Alcuin appear one after another there!
OK, then – I’ll see your Augustine and Alcuin, and raise you Chrystostom (from the same section of the Catena):
Chrystostom:
OK, then – I’ll see your Augustine and Alcuin, and raise you Chrystostom (from the same section of the Catena):
Chrystostom:
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Why on earth would he claim that? To help your argument? Seems convenient I suppose.
Does this sentiment convict yourself? Or, are you perhaps projecting?Man… you must really hate the Gospel of John, eh?
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Yeah, it’s a moot subject.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Nah… it’s just one that has a diversity of opinions throughout history.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
This thread has somehow derailed. The Catechism clearly states,
Baptism as a sacrament was NOT instituted prior to Pentecost. If it had been, then Peter would not have been re-baptizing people who had already been baptized by John the Baptist. End of debate.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Getting back to the original thread topic
The Catechism states:
Catechumens who desired baptism but died in any way other than martyrdom before receiving it are considered “baptized by desire”. There are probably souls in heaven who were baptized in this way. However, I am having difficulty locating any saints other than St. Dismas (see below) who fall in this category though, because:
The Catechism states:
Therefore, martyrs who die for the Faith before they can be properly baptized (such as St. Genesius who underwent a mock baptism with an actor playing a priest, St. Drosis the daughter of Trajan, and St. Emerentiana) are considered “baptized by blood”. Obviously there are a lot of saints in this group.
Catechumens who desired baptism but died in any way other than martyrdom before receiving it are considered “baptized by desire”. There are probably souls in heaven who were baptized in this way. However, I am having difficulty locating any saints other than St. Dismas (see below) who fall in this category though, because:
- The vast majority of “unbaptized saints” came to the attention of the Church because they were martyred, so they fall under “baptism of blood”;
- The Church is reluctant to state definitively that a particular saint in historic times (as opposed to modern times) was definitely not baptized, as we often don’t have complete records to show that they definitely weren’t. If a catechumen was dying in a way that was not sudden, he might well have been baptized as an emergency measure because he was in danger of death and wanted to be baptized.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Watch out – this is where I got into trouble with @AugustTherese!
Do you mean instituted as in “instituted by Christ”? Or do you mean celebrated as in “celebrated by the Church as a sacrament”? I think you and I would hold to both of these claims, but some would claim both instituted and celebrated prior to Pentecost, and that’s where the disagreement lies.
- Status