Was John the Baptists's Baptisms efficacious?

[NotWorthy]

What ? Are you stating that you don’t believe the 12 of Christ EVER received WATER Baptism … either from John or from Christ ? If I’m stating your position correctly … show us some ECF support for your ideas.

John 20 speaks to their CONFIRMATIONS, sealing by Christ with H.S.

I’m stating that Baptisms prior to Christ’s Ascension were ineffective, compared to Baptisms afterwards. Nothing more.

Show me where ECF’s said that Sacramental Baptisms were performed prior to this Event. If the Church teaches this, then I will gladly apologize and thank you brothers and sisters for showing me the truth.

I’m not here merely to argue.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I’m stating that Baptisms prior to Christ’s Ascension were ineffective, compared to Baptisms afterwards. Nothing more.

Show me where ECF’s said that Sacramental Baptisms were performed prior to this Event. If the Church teaches this, then I will gladly apologize and thank you brothers and sisters for showing me the truth.

I’m not here merely to argue.

This is from the classic theology series “The sacraments : a dogmatic treatise (Volume 1)” - Pohle, Joseph, 1852-1922—Preuss, Arthur, 1871-1934

“…the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism coincides with the beginning of our Lord’s public career. Scotus says : " The disciples of Christ baptized before the passion; whence it follows that the Sacrament was instituted before that
event, though the Gospel tells us nothing about the exact time.” 2*

**St. Augustine:**When almost all felt the force of this argument, Fortunius attempted to meet it by saying, that before the Lord’s Passion that communion with a wicked man did no harm to the apostles, because they had not as yet the baptism of Christ, but the baptism of John only. When he said this, I asked him to explain how it was written that Jesus baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples, that is to say, baptized by means of His disciples? John 4:1-2 How could they give what they had not received (a question often used by the Donatists themselves)? Did Christ baptize with the baptism of John? I was prepared to ask many other questions in connection with this opinion of Fortunius; such as— how John himself was interrogated as to the Lord’s baptizing, and replied that He had the bride, and was the Bridegroom? John 3:29 Was it, then, lawful for the Bridegroom to baptize with the baptism of him who was but a friend or servant? ***Again, how could they receive the Eucharist if not previously baptized? Or how could the Lord in that case have said in reply to Peter, who was willing to be wholly washed by Him, “He that is washed needs not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit”? John 13:10 For perfect cleansing is by the baptism, not of John, but of the Lord, if the person receiving it be worthy; if, however, he be unworthy, the sacraments abide in him, not to his salvation, but to his perdition. ***When I was about to put these questions, Fortunius himself saw that he ought not to have mooted the subject of the baptism of the disciples of the Lord. Letter 44, Ch. 5

I like St. Augustine. He’s my patron saint, so we have an understanding.

Here’s the verse he referenced:

Jesus said to him, “Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all.” John 13:10.

It seems to refer to the ability of their baptism to have made them clean, which Augustine references. He also apparently used my same remark about the baptism and the Eucharist many centuries before I thought I was very clever using it. Humbling…

brb3, this one is for you:

But if John, as he himself confessed, did not baptize with the Spirit, it follows that he did not forgive sins either, for no man has his sins remitted without the Holy Ghost. Or if you contentiously argue that, because the baptism of John was from heaven, therefore sins were forgiven by it, show me what more there is for us to get in Christ’s baptism. Because it forgives sins, it releases from Gehenna. Because it releases from Gehenna, it is perfect. But no baptism can be called perfect except that which depends on the cross and resurrection of Christ.St. Jerome dialogue against luciferians

Now, that being said, I’ve scoured the fathers, and there are a myriad of views. St. Thomas, Augustine, Ambrose and Gregory of Nanzianzen agree with my proposition that baptism was Sacramental in the gospels. Others do not. Tertullian agrees with Brb3 that Jesus was giving John’s baptism. I take that one with a grain of salt (since he is the only one I could find that thinks that), but the point being, there is room in the fathers for all of our views. I hope I have shown that there is support for my viewpoint, Notworthy, for not only my contention of Sacramental baptism, but also my contention that it is possible Jesus baptized some of the apostles based on Clement of Alexandria and the two independent Coptic references. At the very least, this has been a truly stimulating discussion.

 

[Bookcat]

No one here is making claim that John’s Baptism was Sacramental. Some here are saying it was VERY Efficacious for those receiving in faith with repentant hearts. And, that it allowed Christ to bring Grace to those receiving.

I would say that yes it was an act of repentance…and a prep. for the the coming of the Christ. If one was truly repenting etc…it was a movement towards the right way…John was preparing for the coming of the Lord…and so his Baptism was a sign to prepare hearts etc…I would say it was “efficacious” like our Baptism is of course…but it was a good act heading the person towards God.

It was ‘very similiar’ to what Peter tells us our water washing in baptism today does. It was an ‘appeal’ to God by those receiving to have their sins REMOVED. Which Christ completed … and made efficacious for them via Calvary.

No I would not say that. Such is only Christian Baptism… though in the more “generic sense” I suppose one could use the word appeal here…since it was an act of repentance…but Peter follows this with Baptism now saves you…so the effect is actually occuring…just as in the Eucharistic Prayer…one asks for the bread and wine to become Christ…and it is actually happening during the EP. But NO Christ did NOT make the baptisms of John efficacious for them via Calvary in the sense of Christian Baptism…rather they were to receive HIS Baptism! (of course it is possible for a Baptism of desire…for say those who left and traveled somewhere and never heard the Gospel…)

Did it confer the H.S. on them ? It appears not. At least in case of Apollos & Friends, who were not Baptised into Name of Christ … it did not. So, we can know that their baptisms were not SACRAMENTAL. Nevertheless, their baptisms HAD proven EFFICACIOUS for them !!!

All repentance…can be “efficacious” in a sense…in that it is a response to grace and turns one in the direction of God…but not all repentance is efficacious in the same way…I would not say Johns Baptism was efficacious in itself like a Christian Sacrament…but yes like other acts of prayer or repentance…when people turn to God in response to a grace…God can work in their lives …begin to change them…etc In the case of the Baptism of John…it was to prepare for Christ…he prepared the way of the Lord…so it pointed towards Christ…prepared for him…and later they responded to the Gospel and repented, believed the Gospel and were Baptized into Christ.

But yes those who may not have stuck around for this…the Baptism of John was a good beginning…God could still work with them…as he does even today.

and of course the Gospel spread quickly…so it prob. caught up with them…as we see happening in Acts

 

[NotWorthy]

This is from the classic theology series “The sacraments : a dogmatic treatise (Volume 1)” - Pohle, Joseph, 1852-1922—Preuss, Arthur, 1871-1934

Now, that being said, I’ve scoured the fathers, and there are a myriad of views. St. Thomas, Augustine, Ambrose and Gregory of Nanzianzen agree with my proposition that baptism was Sacramental in the gospels. Others do not. Tertullian agrees with Brb3 that Jesus was giving John’s baptism. I take that one with a grain of salt (since he is the only one I could find that thinks that), but the point being, there is room in the fathers for all of our views. I hope I have shown that there is support for my viewpoint, Notworthy, for not only my contention of Sacramental baptism, but also my contention that it is possible Jesus baptized some of the apostles based on Clement of Alexandria and the two independent Coptic references. At the very least, this has been a truly stimulating discussion.

Nathan, I thank you for many things:
A) for bringing me the words of St. Augustine and the others in this matter.
B) for showing that other Fathers were all over the map, rather than just covering up those that disagree with your view point (that’s mighty big of you, brother!)
C) for showing immense patience with yours truly!

And I, like you, have truly enjoyed this stimulating discussion! I’ve come to the conclusion that we might as well discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (everybody, who knows anything, knows its 25!), for it doesn’t really make much of a difference.

But it has helped me learn quite a bit!

Thanks again and God Bless!

 

[NotWorthy]

Nathan, what does the following passage in Acts, chapter 1, tell you?

While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for "the promise of the Father about which you have heard me speak; 5 for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit."

I just stumbled across this while dealing with Matthias being an Apostle.
It would seem to me that this passage would indicate that the Apostles had not been baptized with the Holy Spirit during any time in their previous ministry.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Pentecost. I appreciate the kind words, by the way. The fathers were all over the map on this issue, and for what it’s worth, they even had differing opinions of what baptism by the Holy Spirit meant. Their conversations sound eerily like this thread, actually.

For this reason, I necessarily use some of our currently defined magisterium with some of their beliefs, i.e, that of Tertullian saying it was really still John’s baptism. This leaves a slightly narrower range to play with, but there is still room for speculation.

In my understanding, “baptism” of the Holy Spirit refers to the Pentecostal event. It is an event that fulfilled a Jewish feast day (completing Jesus’ fulfillment of the Jewish liturgical calendar), and is referring to a specific manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Our equivalent is Confirmation, which Magisterium refers to as the Sacrament of Martyrdom and evangelization. Notice that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit in the gospel of John prior to Ascension, and in the Synoptics when he commissioned them to cast out evil spirits, etc, but that he was still to “send the Holy Spirit.” This only makes sense if we truly note the varying manifestations, i.e. graces, present from the beginning in the Bible. The best defined comparison we have now would be the infused grace of baptism vs. the grace imparted by Confirmation.

Also be aware that “baptism,” due to it’s flexibility in Greek, did not merely refer to water baptism, but to an immersing or even pouring, and sometimes to a trial or ordeal. Because of this flexibility in the word itself, as well as the varying manifestations of the Holy Spirit throughout the Gospels and Acts, one must be careful not to make baptism refer to one thing across the board. Remember that even now, our protestant brethren mean something completely different by Baptism of the Holy Spirit then we would mean.

An example of what I mean by this can be found in Acts 8:14-17:

Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.

Notice that this is well after the coming of the Holy Spirit and the Ascension, Baptism must have been Sacramental, and yet they had not received the Holy Spirit? This is why my contention is that the “coming of the Holy Spirit” refers to this specific manifestation at Pentecost in which our Confirmation is rooted, and yet does not preclude an infused grace at baptism. I hope this explains my thoughts on the matter.

 

[James224]

Tim is the authority on this … whatever he says I’ll accept !! Good of U to put the question to him !!! Most Protestants become Catholics like Tim ] … know their facts deadon !!!

Keep in mind that Acts 19 tells us these 12 knew of & preached Jesus was the Christ … however this doesn’t necessarily mean they received their Johnnine Baptisms into Christ. Would appear it was only for Repentance … as they knew NOTHING of the H.S.

This is what Paul FIXED for them … by giving them proper Trinitarian Baptisms & then CONFIRMING THEM WITH HOLY SPIRIT.

Amen! As Tim would say. Thanks for all the (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[brb3]

As Tim would say. Thanks for all the (name removed by moderator)ut!

Invite Tim Staples to join us here at CAF on this thread. We still have alot of unanswered questions on this topic that he could be of help with.

 

[brb3]

The fathers were all over the map on this issue, and for what it’s worth, they even had differing opinions of what baptism by the Holy Spirit meant. Their conversations sound eerily like this thread, actually.

Tertullian saying it was really still John’s baptism.

In my understanding, “baptism” of the Holy Spirit refers to the Pentecostal event. Our equivalent is Confirmation, which Magisterium refers to as the Sacrament of Martyrdom and evangelization. Notice that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit in the gospel of John prior to Ascension, and in the Synoptics when he commissioned them to cast out evil spirits, etc, but that he was still to “send the Holy Spirit.” This only makes sense if we truly note the varying manifestations, i.e. graces, present from the beginning in the Bible. The best defined comparison we have now would be the infused grace of baptism vs. the grace imparted by Confirmation.

An example of what I mean by this can be found in Acts 8:14-17: Notice that this is well after the coming of the Holy Spirit and the Ascension, Baptism must have been Sacramental, and yet they had not received the Holy Spirit?

This is why my contention is that the “coming of the Holy Spirit” refers to this specific manifestation at Pentecost in which our Confirmation is rooted, and yet does not preclude an infused grace at baptism. I hope this explains my thoughts on the matter.

N.W. … you have a very perceptive mind, as the above comments demonstrate.

I’ve re-read the CCC on Baptism, Confirmation, & the Eucharist … to see what the Catholic Church today teaches on these 3 Sacraments & to see the footnotes that support the CCC’s teaching. They are presented as a continuum … with each Sacrament building upon the prior one. The CCC teaches ALL are Essential … and order is important. Eucharist always last, Baptism first. [yet we know Paul was Confirmed with H.S. BEFORE he was washed with water]. So, there are a few exceptions to the Rule.

The Church teaches we receive a degree of sealing, and a receipt of H.S. with water Trinitarian Baptism … yet it is the ‘laying on of hands’ Confirmation that produces the more dramatic /substantual SEALING of H.S. Finally, the ‘as often as you meet’ Eucharist continues to ‘Rebaptize’ the believer and ‘maintain’ one’s sealing INTO CHRIST.

Baptism and Confirmation can occur on same day … yet in many cases they can be separated by many years. It is interesting that Paul did not simply Confirm Apollos and Friends … but, viewed their ‘repentance only’ baptisms as INADEQUATE. Not w/o efficacy, for they were strong / devoted proponents of Jesus as the Christ … yet they claimed they knew not the Holy Spirit. It appears Paul was surprized to learn their Johnnine Baptisms had not included mention of Christ. Surely this was not the first time Paul had encountered those Baptized by John. He was intimately associated with the 12 Apostles, some of whom were John’s disciples and would clearly have been baptized by John.

We know Christ sought out John for receipt of water Baptism. And, we know John & his Disciples continued to baptize AFTER Christ began his ministry and taught his 12 to perform baptisms. Christ never asked John to stop performing his Baptisms ! If they offered no efficacy, John would have been instructed to defer all baptismal candidates to Christ & his 12. This did not happen … which means Christ saw value / efficacy in John’s ministry and baptisms.

Now, since Christ did not baptize, [St. John says so], his 12 Apostles’ water baptisms were without a doubt performed by John. John taught his water baptism was ONLY for repentance, but that Christ was coming and would baptize with the Holy Spirit & Fire. But, again, when Christ came he didn’t perform the water baptisms …rather he instructed his 12 to do so. So, it is clear that Christ’s role was to instill his Spirit and Power into those whom John had earlier baptized, and also into those whom his Apostles and all those whom Priest/Mininsters would thereafter submerge in water [per the Great Commission message of Christ given in Matthew’s Gospel.]

It appears that it is only after the Resurrection that Christ CONFIRMS his 12 with the H.S. … yet even then, they were to wait — til Pentecost, when the H.S. became most active within the 12, all other disciples, and all new Converts. Just as the Catholic Church teaches in the CCC … our Baptismal H.S. sealings become more potent upon our Confirmational sealing with H.S.

Finally, w/o frequent receipt of the Eucharist … and the grace and Holy Spirit ‘essence’ of Christ it provides us … our earlier Baptisms & Confirmations can grow cold, weighted down by much subsequent unconfessed sinning. So, Baptism gives ‘birth’ to us … Confirmation ‘matures’ us… and the Eucharist ‘sustains’ us.

This is my understanding of the CCC dialog on our 3 Sacraments — the take-home message I get from our Catholic Codebook.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I have some reservations about your viewpoint, since many of the fathers clearly delineated between the two baptisms. I disagree that they were given the Holy Spirit lacking in their baptism in the gospel of John after Jesus rose again. Why? Because water baptism is never shown to have been completed separately. It almost seems like an odd middle ground between Protestant and Catholic, where the apostles are baptized with water, then with Spirit separately, then with Spirit again finally, and this is a bit strained, and dare I say novel. This is especially true if you consider that the apostles were given the Holy Spirit prior to Christ’s crucixion as well, so now you would have to argue that they were water baptized only, then given the Holy Spirit before the cross a couple times, after the cross, then finally at Pentecost. So now you would find yourself in the unenviable position of deciding which of these givings of the Holy Spirit completes the water baptism. It just opens up a can of worms that is difficult to deal with. Fathers such as St. Thomas (I will cover this below more indepth) specify that “water and the Spirit” must be at the same moment, in the same baptism. Arguing with your point would seem to destroy typology as well. Can you imagine the Israelites being baptized into the red sea first, then have the Spirit (for the baptism) come later? I imagine they would be floating with the Egyptians…

I also am cautious about assuming that John the Baptist’s baptisms were the same as Jesus,’ and endorsed by them, because I don’t think it necessarily logically follows that because John’s baptism pre-figured Jesus’s baptism, and Jesus allows him to continue baptizing, that he is therefore still endorsing John’s baptism as the same. Jesus did not still endorse Temple sacrifice after his crucifixion, as well as many other things, but he did not immediately reject or speak out against them. Rather, his call was to follow him, and you are left to do as you choose. Taking into the fact that it appeared John himself had doubts about Jesus being the Messiah right up to his imprisonment, it appears that it is at least possible that some baptisms were either being conducted by John or in his name separate from Jesus. This is speculation, but a case can be made from the text, which is why I am hesitant to endorse your idea.

I have covered the qualifier about John 4:2, so I will not post it again, but the text does allow for the understanding that Jesus baptized at least one person, and this has been pointed out by scholars prior to me, including the Church Fathers I have cited earlier.

More than that, Jerome does not allow for the idea of John having an “efficacious but not Sacramental” baptism, in fact in the quote I cited against the Luciferians he specifically calls the idea “contentious.” So if the baptism infused the Holy Spirit, if it gave any grace at all, if sins were forgiven, then it was not the baptism of John. St. Thomas states that they were not merely sealed, but had to be re-baptized with water and the Spirit, then sealed, the implication being so as to obey John 3:5 and receive the gift of Pentecost through the laying on of hands. This understanding also shows that Jesus’ baptism, in contrast to John’s baptism, was Sacramental, and he alludes to the institution at Jordan elsewhere as well.

In the passage I cited by Augustine, he makes the excellent point that I unknowingly parroted earlier: That the disciples had to be Sacramentally baptized if they were to be ordained and Sacramentally take part in the Eucharist at the last Supper. And he uses John 13:10 to prove his point. I will quote again below so you don’t have to scroll:

St. Augustine: When almost all felt the force of this argument, Fortunius attempted to meet it by saying, that before the Lord’s Passion that communion with a wicked man did no harm to the apostles, because they had not as yet the baptism of Christ, but the baptism of John only. When he said this, I asked him to explain how it was written that Jesus baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples, that is to say, baptized by means of His disciples? John 4:1-2 How could they give what they had not received (a question often used by the Donatists themselves)? Did Christ baptize with the baptism of John? I was prepared to ask many other questions in connection with this opinion of Fortunius; such as— how John himself was interrogated as to the Lord’s baptizing, and replied that He had the bride, and was the Bridegroom? John 3:29 Was it, then, lawful for the Bridegroom to baptize with the baptism of him who was but a friend or servant? Again, how could they receive the Eucharist if not previously baptized? Or how could the Lord in that case have said in reply to Peter, who was willing to be wholly washed by Him, “He that is washed needs not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit”? John 13:10 For perfect cleansing is by the baptism, not of John, but of the Lord, if the person receiving it be worthy; if, however, he be unworthy, the sacraments abide in him, not to his salvation, but to his perdition. When I was about to put these questions, Fortunius himself saw that he ought not to have mooted the subject of the baptism of the disciples of the Lord. Letter 44, Ch. 5

We can learn a few things from the above quote. Augustine felt the baptisms were Sacramental because they had to be to take part in the Sacramental Eucharist. He felt that Jesus was not still giving John’s baptism. Conversely, we can see from the passage in Acts that John appears not to necessarily have been giving Jesus’ baptism either, which fits in with the vast majority of the fathers (except Tertullian from what I can find) saying that the two were separate.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

My contention, again, is that the baptism of Jesus was Sacramental after he was baptized in the Jordan. Not all the fathers believe this, but many heavy hitters do, it makes sense of Scripture, and so I feel comfortable espousing it. I am free to be incorrect if the Church ever chooses to define otherwise, however, precisely because the Church has defined a bit more clearly the differing nature of the Holy Spirit and it’s Sacramental role, I believe Augustine, Thomas and others were quite possibly correct.

 

[brb3]

I also am cautious about assuming that John the Baptist’s baptisms were the same as Jesus,’ and endorsed by them, because I don’t think it necessarily logically follows that because John’s baptism pre-figured Jesus’s baptism, and Jesus allows him to continue baptizing, that he is therefore still endorsing John’s baptism as the same. Jesus did not still endorse Temple sacrifice after his crucifixion, as well as many other things, but he did not immediately reject or speak out against them. Rather, his call was to follow him, and you are left to do as you choose. Taking into the fact that it appeared John himself had doubts about Jesus being the Messiah right up to his imprisonment, it appears that it is at least possible that some baptisms were either being conducted by John or in his name separate from Jesus. This is speculation, but a case can be made from the text, which is why I am hesitant to endorse your idea.

Recall John stated to Christ that “you should be baptizing me” … not me you. Yet, Christ did not take John up on his request. At least, not with water baptism … since Christ didn’t perform water baptisms. Nevertheless, John did receive his Spiritual Baptism from Christ … same as all other believers, in every age.

Christ is content to allow man to perform water baptisms … and he then performs the spiritual baptism which accompanys/follows the washing of repentance.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Recall John stated to Christ that “you should be baptizing me” … not me you. Yet, Christ did not take John up on his request. At least, not with water baptism … since Christ didn’t perform water baptisms. Nevertheless, John did receive his Spiritual Baptism from Christ … same as all other believers, in every age.

That’s because Christ hadn’t instituted it yet. The text is silent about whether he baptized John or not, (I would argue no). As to whether Jesus did or did not baptize, I have made numerous points earlier which have yet to be responded to.

Christ is content to allow man to perform water baptisms … and he then performs the spiritual baptism which accompanys/follows the washing of repentance.

This is an assertion that doesn’t deal with any of the difficulties I have pointed out with believing this.

 

[brb3]

For perfect cleansing is by the baptism, not of John, but of the Lord, if the person receiving it be worthy; if, however, he be unworthy, the sacraments abide in him, not to his salvation, but to his perdition.

When I was about to put these questions, Fortunius himself saw that he ought not to have mooted the subject of the baptism of the disciples of the Lord. Letter 44, Ch. 5

We can learn a few things from the above quote. Augustine felt the baptisms were Sacramental because they had to be to take part in the Sacramental Eucharist. He felt that Jesus was not still giving John’s baptism. Conversely, we can see from the passage in Acts that John appears not to necessarily have been giving Jesus’ baptism either, which fits in with the vast majority of the fathers (except Tertullian from what I can find) saying that the two were separate.

John was instructed by H.S. to understand his Baptism was INFERIOR to that of Christ. This is why he asked Christ to wash him … not vice versa. Nevertheless, Christ knew this was not his role … to wash us with water. Just as the Father instilled the H.S. on him as man washed Jesus … Christ everthereafter instills the H.S. upon those washed by his priest/ministers. John … having been washed/baptized in the womb, and filled with H.S. from on high.

John was very clear on this … saying he could only wash man/woman for repentance sakes … but, Christ alone could forgive their sins and instill [baptize] them with H.S. & make them new creations.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Christ hadn’t even instituted the Sacrament yet, how could he administer it? He had to set the example an institute it first, yes? I also have shown that it is possible that John had varying ideas of the Messiah, and possibly ran a parallel ministry.

You are still espousing the novel idea of a completion of the water baptism’s spiritual aspect, which is not supported by Scripture or the Fathers, and causes typological issues as well. Never does Scripture show the Spirit coming separately to complete the water baptism, and the parallelism of John 3:5 (water and the Spirit) doesn’t allow for this either. All this has already been pointed out in my super-duper mega-post.

 

[brb3]

You are still espousing the novel idea of a completion of the water baptism’s spiritual aspect, which is not supported by Scripture or the Fathers, and causes typological issues as well. Never does Scripture show the Spirit coming separately to complete the water baptism, and the parallelism of John 3:5 (water and the Spirit) doesn’t allow for this either. All this has already been pointed out in my super-duper mega-post.

Scripture is full of support for TWO aspects to our Baptisms. Starting most especially with the example Christ left us — with his own Baptism.

He DESIRED baptism from man … and sought out John to receive it. Then, once he had arose from the waters, John saw the Father send down the Holy Spirit upon Christ [Part 2] of the Sacramental event. They are not ‘separated’ very long in time … only seconds. Yet, there is the human component of water baptism & the subsequent spiritual baptism that follows immediately thereafter.

Christ later taught in the Gospels that we must be Born TWICE. First of Water Baptism, and next with Spiritual Baptism. Why is this so hard to picture in the mind ? We all know we first must repent of sins … and seek forgiveness of them. We need to accomplish this thru the Universal Church Structure that Christ instituted upon Peter, the Rock. So, we of NECESSITY go to our Ministers/Priests to get washed … and if Christ knows our hearts are sincere in desiring rebirths & his H.S. … He Completes the Baptism, making it Sacramental with his Blood of Calvary.

Tell me your understanding of Christ’s words … "Ye must be born again, of water & spirit " …

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Scripture is full of support for TWO aspects to our Baptisms. Starting most especially with the example Christ left us — with his own Baptism.

He DESIRED baptism from man … and sought out John to receive it. Then, once he had arose from the waters, John saw the Father send down the Holy Spirit upon Christ [Part 2] of the Sacramental event. They are not ‘separated’ very long in time … only seconds. Yet, there is the human component of water baptism & the subsequent spiritual baptism that follows immediately thereafter.

Christ later taught in the Gospels that we must be Born TWICE. First of Water Baptism, and next with Spiritual Baptism. Why is this so hard to picture in the mind ? We all know we first must repent of sins … and seek forgiveness of them. We need to accomplish this thru the Universal Church Structure that Christ instituted upon Peter, the Rock. So, we of NECESSITY go to our Ministers/Priests to get washed … and if Christ knows our hearts are sincere in desiring rebirths & his H.S. … He Completes the Baptism, making it Sacramental with his Blood of Calvary.

Tell me your understanding of Christ’s words … "Ye must be born again, of water & spirit " …

Suffice it to say, that I completely disagree with your intepretation, for reasons already stated earlier in this thread in response to other people. Also, I want you to be aware that your current interpretation of John 3:5 runs contrary to nearly every single Catholic apologetics usage of it you will find anywhere, as well as Magisterium, unfortunately. I would say it is truly novel, and the contradictions it creates are numerous (which, again, I have discussed earlier). I am going to paste a portion of the Catholic Encyclopedia that concisely sums up the points I have been trying to make indepth with all of you repeatedly. Is it infallible? No. But it is authoritative, and I pray that you all read it and think of my position prayerfully in a new light. This will be my final post on the matter, because we are all simply repeating the same points with different posters. I’ve enjoyed the dialogue with all of you. Emphasis mine:

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

That Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism is unquestionable. Rationalists, like Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, I, 68), dispute it, only by arbitrarily ruling out the texts which prove it. Christ not only commands His Disciples (Matthew 28:19) to baptize and gives them the form to be used, but He also declares explicitly the absolute necessity of baptism (John 3): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God.” Moreover, from the general doctrine of the Church on the sacraments, we know that the efficacy attached to them is derivable only from the institution of the Redeemer.

When, however, we come to the question as to when precisely Christ instituted baptism, we find that ecclesiastical writers are not agreed. The Scriptures themselves are silent upon the subject. **Various occasions have been pointed out as the probable time of institution, as when Christ was Himself baptized in the Jordan, when He declared the necessity of the rebirth to Nicodemus, when He sent His Apostles and Disciples to preach and baptize. **

**The first opinion was quite a favorite with many of the Fathers and Schoolmen, and they are fond of referring to the sanctification of the baptismal water by contact with the flesh of the God-man. Others, as St. Jerome and St. Maximus, appear to assume that Christ baptized John on this occasion and thus instituted the sacrament. **There is nothing, however, in the Gospels to indicate that Christ baptized the Precursor at the time of His own baptism. As to the opinion that it was in the colloquy with Nicodemus that the sacrament was instituted, it is not surprising that it has found few adherents. Christ’s words indeed declare the necessity of such an institution, but no more. It seems also very unlikely that Christ would have instituted the sacrament in a secret conference with one who was not to be a herald of its institution.

The more probable opinion seems to be that baptism, as a sacrament, had its origin when Christ commissioned His Apostles to baptize, as narrated in John 3 and 4. There is nothing directly in the text as to the institution, but as the Disciples acted evidently under the instruction of Christ, He must have taught them at the very outset the matter and form of the sacrament which they were to dispense. It is true that St. John Chrysostom (Homily 28 on the Gospel of John), Theophylactus (in cap. iii, Joan.), and Tertullian (On Baptism, Chapter 2) declare that the baptism given by the Disciples of Christ as narrated in these chapters of St. John was a baptism of water only and not of the Holy Ghost; but their reason is that the Holy Ghost was not given until after the Resurrection. As theologians have pointed out, this is a confusion between the visible and the invisible manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The authority of St. Leo (Epistle 16) is also invoked for the same opinion, inasmuch as he seems to hold that Christ instituted the sacrament when, after His rising from the dead, He gave the command (Matthew 28): “Go and teach . . . baptizing”; but St. Leo’s words can easily be explained otherwise, and in another part of the same epistle he refers to the sanction of regeneration given by Christ when the water of baptism flowed from His side on the Cross; consequently, before the Resurrection. All authorities agree that Matthew 28, contains the solemn promulgation of this sacrament, and St. Leo does not seem to intend more than this. We need not delay on the arguments of those who declare baptism to have been necessarily established after Christ’s death, because the efficacy of the sacraments is derived from His Passion. This would prove also that the Holy Eucharist was not instituted before His death, which is untenable. As to the frequent statement of the Fathers that the sacraments flowed from the side of Christ upon the Cross, it is enough to say that beyond the symbolism found therein, their words can be explained as referring to the death of Christ, as the meritorious cause or perfection of the sacraments, but not necessarily as their time of institution.

**All things considered, we can safely state, therefore, that Christ most probably instituted baptism before His Passion. For in the first place, as is evident from John 3 and 4, Christ certainly conferred baptism, at least by the hands of His Disciples, before His Passion. That this was an essentially different rite from John the Precursor’s baptism seems plain, **because the baptism of Christ is always preferred to that of John, and the latter himself states the reason: “I baptize with water . . . [Christ] baptizeth with the Holy Ghost” (John 1). In the baptism given by the Disciples as narrated in these chapters we seem to have all the requisites of a sacrament of the New Law:

•the external rite,
•the institution of Christ, for they baptized by His command and mission, and
•the conferring of grace, for they bestowed the Holy Ghost (John 1).
In the second place, the Apostles received other sacraments from Christ, before His Passion, as the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, and Holy orders (Council of Trent, Sess. XXVI, c. i).

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

cont:

Now as baptism has always been held as the door of the Church and the necessary condition for the reception of any other sacrament, it follows that the Apostles must have received Christian baptism before the Last Supper. This argument is used by St. Augustine (Epistle 44) and certainly seems valid. To suppose that the first pastors of the Church received the other sacraments by dispensation, before they had received baptism, is an opinion with no foundation in Scripture or Tradition and devoid of verisimilitude. The Scriptures nowhere state that Christ Himself conferred baptism, but an ancient tradition (Nicephorus, Hist. eccl, II, iii; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book III) declares that He baptized the Apostle Peter only, and that the latter baptized Andrew, James, and John, and they the other Apostles.

 

[StrawberryJam]

cont:

Now as baptism has always been held as the door of the Church and the necessary condition for the reception of any other sacrament, it follows that the Apostles must have received Christian baptism before the Last Supper. This argument is used by St. Augustine (Epistle 44) and certainly seems valid. To suppose that the first pastors of the Church received the other sacraments by dispensation, before they had received baptism, is an opinion with no foundation in Scripture or Tradition and devoid of verisimilitude. The Scriptures nowhere state that Christ Himself conferred baptism, but an ancient tradition (Nicephorus, Hist. eccl, II, iii; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book III) declares that He baptized the Apostle Peter only, and that the latter baptized Andrew, James, and John, and they the other Apostles.

Tell me more about Nicephorus. Tell everyone you are trying to wow with citations they never researched and have no idea about.