Unbaptized Christians?

[SteveGC]

My family is composed largely of Quakers, who see the sacraments as mere disposable symbols. As such, most of them have never been baptized. However, they also consider themselves staunch Christians, and in most other respects would identify with typical evangelical Protestant theology and practice. They believe in a conversion experience, a personal relationship with God, moral living, (their own interpretation of) the Bible, and so forth. Some are involved in formal ministry and missions work, and seem to be every bit as faithful and fruitful as many baptized Christians.

So my question: how does this fit into the Catholic, sacramental understanding of baptism as the beginning of Christian life? Does it fall under baptism by desire (if only they knew what baptism was, they’d go through with it)? Can a person be a Christian and yet purposefully unbaptized as a result of sheer ignorance?

And finally: does it fall to me, the lone Catholic of the bunch, to direct them toward a better understanding of the sacraments so that they will at least get baptized? Thanks for any advice!

We really haven’t addressed the OP’s question yet.

Yes, it basically would fall under baptism of desire. How culpable they are for their ignorance is actually the dilemma. Many would argue that in today’s modern age, most people are not invincibly ignorant, because the Catholic evangelization effort exists to a degree that allows for all but perhaps a few to receive the message, explore the content therein, and find sufficient rational reason to ascend or submit to it.

It doesn’t fall squarely on you, I don’t think. But you may be in one of the best positions. Of course, it is the Spirit that converts. We are merely instruments of Him. Prayer is often the best evangelization method.

 

[Publisher]

the bolded parts of your comment is either condescending, or ignorant…or both. From your demeanor, I would guess it’s the latter. I’m sure you meant nothing by it, but your wording suggests that Catholics have no experience of spiritual baptism, but only ritualistic physical baptism. Your later comment to Mickey reveals you probably didn’t mean it that way, correct?

How would you wish me to express this friend? I have address HOW Friends view it…I am not denigrating your witness or experience…as a Friend…I do not beleive rituals are required to receive God’s grace…HOWEVER for those who do find comfort and meaning in such rituals…we have no problem with that…FOR US however…they are not necessary in our experience with God.

“ignorant”? Yes…often times I am…“condescending”…not meant to be…if it appeard so…friend…you have my sincere apology.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

We really haven’t addressed the OP’s question yet.

Yes, it basically would fall under baptism of desire. How culpable they are for their ignorance is actually the dilemma. Many would argue that in today’s modern age, most people are not invincibly ignorant, because the Catholic evangelization effort exists to a degree that allows for all but perhaps a few to receive the message, explore the content therein, and find sufficient rational reason to ascend or submit to it.

It doesn’t fall squarely on you, I don’t think. But you may be in one of the best positions. Of course, it is the Spirit that converts. We are merely instruments of Him. Prayer is often the best evangelization method.

Thank you for posting on point When I converted, my family’s first question was: “So do you think baptism is necessary for salvation?” I think they wanted to put the question as simply (or simplistically) as possible so that I would consider my newfound faith as being an eternal condemnation of theirs. Maybe the idea was that I would see the stark contrast and reconsider the conversion.

But anyway, I think the degree of ignorance is the dilemma, as you said. Part of the problem is that, because they are staunch evangelicals, they already see themselves as saved and so not much else matters (baptism, communion, authority, ecclesiology, etc…it doesn’t much matter if you “know” you’re going to heaven). I tried to discuss the sacraments with the meeting’s pastor when I entered the Church, and he said I was “majoring on the minors.” Indifference = invincible or culpable ignorance?

 

[Mickey]

Thank you for posting on point When I converted, my family’s first question was: “So do you think baptism is necessary for salvation?”

Personally, I would have answered with the Fathers of the Church (although they would probably discount them). These early saints of the Church offered many jewels to assist us in our interpretaions of the Sacred Scriptures and Holy Tradition. Like today’s bishops and priests, many of them carried the grace of ordination and apostolic succession–and we know them as living holy and God-pleasing lives. The deepest wells have the clearest water.

St Hippolytus
“[P]erhaps someone will ask, ‘What does it conduce unto piety to be baptized?’ In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: ‘Amen, I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvation” (*Homilies *11:26 [A.D. 217]).

 

[Denise1957]

How would you wish me to express this friend? I have address HOW Friends view it…I am not denigrating your witness or experience…as a Friend…I do not beleive rituals are required to receive God’s grace…HOWEVER for those who do find comfort and meaning in such rituals…we have no problem with that…FOR US however…they are not necessary in our experience with God.

“ignorant”? Yes…often times I am…“condescending”…not meant to be…if it appeard so…friend…you have my sincere apology.

The person who put forth the questions in the OP of the thread already knows how Friends view it. I could be wrong, but it looks as if the OP questions are directed toward, or looking to have a Catholic perspective and answer.

 

[SteveGC]

How would you wish me to express this friend?

The way you just did is much better. If you read what you wrote earlier, and compare it to how you just rephrased it, I think you’ll see the difference. Thanks.

 

[mdrummer5]

How would you wish me to express this friend? I have address HOW Friends view it…I am not denigrating your witness or experience…as a Friend…I do not beleive rituals are required to receive God’s grace…HOWEVER for those who do find comfort and meaning in such rituals…we have no problem with that…FOR US however…they are not necessary in our experience with God.

“ignorant”? Yes…often times I am…“condescending”…not meant to be…if it appeard so…friend…you have my sincere apology.

Just curious (although a bit off topic) presumably then you do not have anything that’s equivalent to the eucharist… again this is something that Jesus explicitly states to do in his memory… so why would you not?

 

[Mickey]

I do not beleive rituals are required to receive God’s grace

And I believe Catholics might say the same thing–so why would you say this?

The Sacraments (not empty or outward rituals) are a means of participating in God’s grace. However, God is not limited by His Sacraments.

 

[Publisher]

The way you just did is much better. If you read what you wrote earlier, and compare it to how you just rephrased it, I think you’ll see the difference. Thanks.

I must be ignorant after all…perhaps since “tone” cannot be determined in a post…and the “tone” in my head does not “sound” condescending or confrontational…I must assume when "you’ read it…you’re assuming a confrontation or belittling post…and I can understand that…again…please take no offense where none was inteded…

 

[Publisher]

And I believe Catholics might say the same thing–so why would you say this?

The Sacraments (not empty or outward rituals) are a means of participating in God’s grace. However, God is not limited by His Sacraments.

Friends do not believe rituals…“outward signs” are necessary to receive God’s grace…so at least we agree “God is not limited…”

 

[Mickey]

Friends do not believe rituals…“outward signs” are necessary to receive God’s grace…so at least we agree “God is not limited…”

And Catholics/Orthodox do not believe that the Sacraments are “outward rituals”. We believe that they are Mysteries instituted by Christ as a means for participating in God’s grace/energies.

…And so as long as you continue with a terminolgy of “outward rituals”, you will sound condescending–or uninformed at best.

 

[William_Pitts]

There are several instances in the Gospels where people were instructed to perform a physical act to complete their healing.

First there was the man born blind. He was instructed to wash in the pool of Siloam to receive his sight:

Joh 9:5 As long as I am in the world I am the light of the world.’
Joh 9:6 Having said this, he spat on the ground, made a paste with the spittle, put this over the eyes of the blind man,
Joh 9:7 and said to him, ‘**Go and wash in the Pool of Siloam’ **(the name means ‘one who has been sent’). So he went off and washed and came back able to see.

Then there was the leper Jesus heal then commanded him to show himself to a priest to confirm he was clean, and to make a sacrifice in the temple as commanded by Moses:

Mar 1:40 A leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, ‘If you choose, you can make me clean.’
Mar 1:41 Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, ‘I do choose. Be made clean!’
Mar 1:42 Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.
Mar 1:43 After sternly warning him he sent him away at once,
Mar 1:44 saying to him, ‘See that you say nothing to anyone; but **go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, **as a testimony to them.’

People are free to believe or disbelieve what they choose, but they will also have to take responsibility for their choices.

We are commanded to be baptized. Act 10:48 So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ

We are commanded to baptize converts. Mat 28:19

Jesus was baptized to put his stamp of approval on it.

The jars that held the water that he turned into wine were for ritual washing.

Baptism is foreshadowed in the OT

Eze_36:25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

1Pe 3:20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight people, were saved through water.
1Pe 3:21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you–not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

2Ki 5:13 But his servants approached and said to him, ‘Father, if the prophet had commanded you to do something difficult, would you not have done it? How much more, when all he said to you was, “Wash, and be clean”?’
2Ki 5:14 So he went down and immersed himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean.

Physical acts can and do carry a spiritual significant meaning. We are baptized because we have been commanded. These are only my understandings.

May God bless you.

 

[SteveGC]

Thank you for posting on point When I converted, my family’s first question was: “So do you think baptism is necessary for salvation?” I think they wanted to put the question as simply (or simplistically) as possible so that I would consider my newfound faith as being an eternal condemnation of theirs. Maybe the idea was that I would see the stark contrast and reconsider the conversion.

But anyway, I think the degree of ignorance is the dilemma, as you said. Part of the problem is that, because they are staunch evangelicals, they already see themselves as saved and so not much else matters (baptism, communion, authority, ecclesiology, etc…it doesn’t much matter if you “know” you’re going to heaven). I tried to discuss the sacraments with the meeting’s pastor when I entered the Church, and he said I was “majoring on the minors.” Indifference = invincible or culpable ignorance?

Here’s the thing. For most staunch non-Catholic Christians, it’s difficult to make much headway squabbling over this doctrine or that doctrine - including the efficacy and necessity of water baptism. Only God knows their culpability - your job is to live your faith (preach the Gospel, and when necessary use words, as St Francis would say). The fact that they know you believe that water baptism is a vital element in salvation is, to me, sufficient preaching on that aspect of the Gospel. Perhaps let it go. It seems obvious that the Spirit is working outside the Church to reach them - their fruit bearing is witness to that. Non-Catholic Christians who fall victim to anti-Catholicism, or to the widespread myths about Catholicism, are not normally going to be compelled by verbal debate, but rather by witnessing in Catholics their evangelical and ministerial zeal and love for Christ. So, if you are concerned about their ignorance, walk away from the debates and just live a good Catholic life. They will see fruit in that, and it will challenge their staunch opposition.

Peace.

 

[Publisher]

And Catholics/Orthodox do not believe that the Sacraments are “outward rituals”. We believe that they are Mysteries instituted by Christ as a means for participating in God’s grace/energies.

…And so as long as you continue with a terminolgy of “outward rituals”, you will sound condescending–or uninformed at best.

I believe in speaking honestly…I cannot in good conscience imply that I accept them as “sacraments”…for me…in my faith tradition…I view them as “outward signs”…I do not feel slighted or condescended to when you insist on calling them “sacraments” or “mysteries”…I accept that is your faith tradition…for me to imply I do would not be honest or truthful…I do not believe they are “Mysteries” instituted by Christ…I understand that you do…I think we both understand the difference between an “attack” or a “condescending” post…again…no offense is meant when I seek to convey MY faith tradition even if it conflicts with yours…it is YOURS…not mine…it would get very tedious to always have to preface…"Please take no offense nor see this as condescending or “ignorant” but as a Friend I do not accept the need for “outward signs or rituals”…but if that is what it takes…I will endeavor to do so.

 

[dzheremi]

Again, though, it is not a mere sign. The Eucharist is not pointing to some other reality that is somehow not present within it. It is truly His holy body and blood. The other sacraments may be understood similarly: true and actual and occurring (again, present tense) baptism, absolution, marriage, etc.

 

[dzheremi]

I think you are having trouble communicating effectively with others in this thread, Publisher, is that the distinction that you make in your own faith tradition that apparently relegates the holy mysteries to “outward signs”, while your people receive in one way or another “the real thing” that is apparently grasped for through the rituals of others that you reject, is at it is base very offensive and very alien to the traditions you are rejecting. As (ideally) no Catholic or Orthodox Christian would themselves embrace the kind of dualistic thinking that you must in order to maintain your view of the sacraments, it would be a bit like a Catholic or Orthodox Christian rejecting the essence of Quaker spirituality because they don’t want to have to wear one of those silly-looking hats they see on the Quaker Oats mascot. You would rightly protest that this would be a gross misunderstanding of what Quaker spirituality is all about, and so we are doing so too in our continued attempts at correcting your view of Christianity and its sacramental reality.

It seems obvious to me that you don’t INTEND any offense, but not as obvious that you understand why you have caused it.

 

[Publisher]

I think you are having trouble communicating effectively with others in this thread, Publisher, is that the distinction that you make in your own faith tradition that apparently relegates the holy mysteries to “outward signs”, while your people receive in one way or another “the real thing” that is apparently grasped for through the rituals of others that you reject, is at it is base very offensive and very alien to the traditions you are rejecting. As (ideally) no Catholic or Orthodox Christian would themselves embrace the kind of dualistic thinking that you must in order to maintain your view of the sacraments, it would be a bit like a Catholic or Orthodox Christian rejecting the essence of Quaker spirituality because they don’t want to have to wear one of those silly-looking hats they see on the Quaker Oats mascot. You would rightly protest that this would be a gross misunderstanding of what Quaker spirituality is all about, and so we are doing so too in our continued attempts at correcting your view of Christianity and its sacramental reality.

It seems obvious to me that you don’t INTEND any offense, but not as obvious that you understand why you have caused it.

Evidentlty I will have to work on my delivery.

 

[Mickey]

for me to imply I do would not be honest or truthful

Finally…the truth. You are on a Catholic forum denying one of the main staples of their faith. You are given multitudes of Scriptural and patristic discourse which supports the apostolic understanding of holy Sacraments (Mysteries) and yet you insist on calling them “outward rituals.”

I do not believe they are “Mysteries” instituted by Christ

This is evident. I think the OP knows what the Quakers believe.

I think we both understand the difference between an “attack” or a “condescending” post.

Yes. And your posts are condescending.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

Friends don’t view them as “disposable symbols”…we don’t accept any “outward” ritual performed for us…or on our behalf as necessary for our salvation…we are baptized…Christ Himself is our Baptizer…in His Spirit…“I baptize you with water…BUT there is one among you who will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

As a Friend I have a very sacramental view of my world…life is sacramental…the “sacred” and the “secular” are not separated…each act of mercy and love…each cup of water given in His name carries with it “sacramental meaning”…each meal is an opportunity to share in the Light.

Your Quaker relatives are Baptized…just not with water.

Publisher, I was born and raised Quaker and remained one for 27 years, so I understand completely where you’re coming from. However, based on some of your posts in other threads, I can safely say the meeting in which I was raised would differ with your theology quite a bit in some regards. (As you probably know, this is not uncommon in Quakerism. My cousin, who has been an administrator in my state’s yearly meeting for several years, went to a worldwide gathering of Quakers and came back saying they probably couldn’t have agreed on a single doctrinal statement. That’s one reason I’m now a Catholic.)

Anyway, I say this because my family is firmly committed to their identity as Christians, above and beyond their Quakerism. They hold to the Trinity, for instance, as a matter of fact. That we so readily (and radically) dismissed or redefined other integral aspects of the traditional Christian faith strikes me as an inconsistency.

 

[hn160]

I believe in speaking honestly…I cannot in good conscience imply that I accept them as “sacraments”…for me…in my faith tradition…I view them as “outward signs”…I do not feel slighted or condescended to when you insist on calling them “sacraments” or “mysteries”…I accept that is your faith tradition…for me to imply I do would not be honest or truthful…I do not believe they are “Mysteries” instituted by Christ…I understand that you do…I think we both understand the difference between an “attack” or a “condescending” post…again…no offense is meant when I seek to convey MY faith tradition even if it conflicts with yours…it is YOURS…not mine…it would get very tedious to always have to preface…"Please take no offense nor see this as condescending or “ignorant” but as a Friend I do not accept the need for “outward signs or rituals”…but if that is what it takes…I will endeavor to do so.

For Lutherans, the Sacraments of Absolution, Baptism, and the Eucharist are God’s Means of Grace through which God gives us His gifts - forgiveness of sins and eternal life. The Sacraments are instituted and commanded by God, a visible element connected with God’s Word, and conveys God’s grace, the promise of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life through faith in Christ.