Was John the Baptists's Baptisms efficacious?

[Nathan_Wagar]

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

That entire post was just pasting from the Catholic Encyclopedia to bolster my original points earlier in the thread. I’m not entirely certain why the Encyclopedia speaks of him having an opinion on the issue, as I am unable to find the reference, nor am I certain which Nicephorus they are referencing. The specific passage about Peter quoted by Clement has already been posted earlier; It’s a fairly short quotation in passing; no context to speak of.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus, apparently a Greek ecclesiastical historian. He has written a multi-volume series, unfortunately I don’t have it so I am unable to provide a citation.

 

[brb3]

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.

Yes … and more than likely it was administered by whom ? John for sure !!! Christ went to John to receive water Baptism … same as had his Apostles !!!

Certainly Christ honored/accepted what they had received from John … since he personally chose them, desiring to have John’s men.

Nevertheless, this matter is really a mystery we will never fully settle, since Christ Baptised 11 of 12 with his H.S. … when all 12 Received the Eucharist Supper. Their earlier Water Baptisms from John were made efficacious by Christ … [except for Judas, who apparently received wrongly … whose Mortal Sin (intentions) prevented him from receiving the grace thereof ].

Later their Fire & H.S. baptism [confirmations] were INFUSED into them … but, not fully made ‘demonstrative’ & potent … until Pentecost.

 

[brb3]

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

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Yes … and more than likely it was administered by whom ? John for sure !!! Christ went to John to receive water Baptism … same as had his Apostles !!!

Certainly he honored/accepted what they had received from John … since he personally chose them, desiring to have John’s men.

Nevertheless, this matter is really a mystery we will never fully settle, since Christ Baptised 11 of 12 with his H.S. … when all 12 Received the Eucharist Supper. Their earlier Water Baptisms from John were made efficacious by Christ … [except for Judas, who apparently received wrongly … whose Mortal Sin (intentions) prevented him from receiving the grace thereof ].

Later their Fire & H.S. baptism [confirmations] were INFUSED into them … but, not fully made ‘demonstrative’ & potent … until Pentecost.

This contradicts defined dogma regarding the different aspects of the Holy Spirit, which ironically is all covered both by my self and the Catholic Encyclopedia above…I honestly did not intend to resurrect this thread, I was merely answering Strawberryjam. The only father to espouse such a viewpoint as yours is Tertullian, and every other father I have seen so far disagrees with this point of view, so I would advise caution on this viewpoint. Particularly because it makes more assertions than can actually be proved, especially when you consider that the recipients of John’s baptism were re-baptized “with water and the Spirit,” and THEN laid hands on, as the fathers also pointed out. Confirmation is rooted in Pentecost, not prior. This understanding the fathers had (and aparently the Holy Father Benedict XVI) of the baptisms of Jesus and John are fundamentally different, and again I urge you to read the ridiculously long post I pasted. Take care. Nathan out.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thanks a lot for the encouragement brb3 and Nathan Wagar!

“I ask, therefore, if sins were remitted by the baptism of John, what more could the baptism of Christ confer on those whom the Apostle Paul desired to be baptized with the baptism of Christ after they had received the baptism of John? But if sins were not remitted by the baptism of John, were those men in the days of Cyprian better than John, of whom he says himself that they ‘used to seize on estates by treacherous frauds, and increase their gains by accumulated usuries,’ through whose, administration of baptism the remission of sins was yet conferred? Or was it because they were contained within the unity of the Church? What then? Was John not contained within that unity, the friend of the Bridegroom, the preparer of the way of the Lord, the baptizer of the Lord Himself? Who will be mad enough to assert this? Wherefore, although my belief is that John so baptized with the water of repentance for the remission of sins, that those who were baptized by him received the expectation of the remission of their sins, the actual remission taking place in the baptism of the Lord,— just as the resurrection which is expected at the last day is fulfilled in hope in us, as the apostle says, that ‘He has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus’ (Ephesians 2:6); and again, ‘For we are saved by hope’ (Romans 8:24); or as again John himself, while he says, ‘I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, for the remission of your sins’ (Matthew 3:11), yet says, on seeing our Lord, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world’ (John 1:29) — nevertheless I am not disposed to contend vehemently against any one who maintains that sins were remitted even in the baptism of John, but that some fuller sanctification was conferred by the baptism of Christ on those whom Paul ordered to be baptized anew (cf. Acts 19:3-5)” (, Bk. 5, Ch. 10On Baptism, Against the Donatists).

I’m confused by this point St. Augustine is saying. When I read Matthew 3:11, it says, "11 I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire. "

Where does John say that his baptism is “for the remission of sins”. The Church certainly doesn’t teach that today.

It could possibly be a manuscript variant? Many of the early fathers quote variant manuscripts of John 3:5, for instance, stating “he must be born again of water and the spirit” instead of “he must be born of water and the Spirit.”

But, St. Augustine basis this paragraph on a variant. He uses incorrect Scripture to promote his point.

Greetings, NotWorthy!

Augustine’s own position was that John’s baptism bestowed the forgiveness of sins in expectation, and that this is what the Gospels mean when they say that it was “for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3) (Good catch on the variant in Matthew’s Gospel! I didn’t even notice). But he somewhat tolerated the opinion of others who believed that the forgiveness of sins really was given by John’s baptism as long as they didn’t place it on equal footing with Christ’s baptism.

He certainly would not have tolerated the opinion of John Calvin, who wrote, “first John baptised, and thus afterwards the apostles by the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Matt. 3:6; 11; Luke 3:16; John 3:23; 4:1; Acts 2:38-41), understanding by the term ‘repentance’, regeneration, and by the ‘remission of sins’, cleansing… This makes it perfectly certain that the ministry of John was the very same as that which was afterwards delegated to the apostles” (Institutes of the Christian Religion). This is the position anathematized by Trent.

John Calvin was able to argue in this way because he rejected the clear teaching of Scripture (cf. Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:47-48) that the baptism “in the Name of the Lord Jesus” of Acts 19:5 was a water baptism. And he failed to note the obvious implication of John 4:1-2: Jesus baptized through the ministry of His disciples, but not through John. This convoluted interpretation of his comes after he accuses Augustine of subtlety and opposes John Chrysostom to Scripture itself, when in reality it is interpretation against interpretation: that of Augustine and John Chrysostom against that of John Calvin.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[brb3]

Wherefore, although my belief is that John so baptized with the water of repentance for the remission of sins, that those who were baptized by him received the expectation of the remission of their sins, the actual remission taking place in the baptism of the Lord,— just as the resurrection which is expected at the last day is fulfilled in hope in us, as the apostle says, that ‘He has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus’ (Ephesians 2:6); and again, ‘For we are saved by hope’ (Romans 8:24); or as again John himself, while he says, ‘I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, for the remission of your sins’ (Matthew 3:11),

very good P.H. …

 

[Pete_Holter]

An additional thought from Augustine of Hippo:

“[T]he baptism of John was one thing, the baptism of Christ another,—just as that baptism was a different thing with which the apostle says that our fathers were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, when they passed through the Red Sea under the guidance of Moses. For the law and the prophets up to the time of John the Baptist had sacraments which foreshadowed things to come; but the sacraments of our time bear testimony that that has come already which the former sacraments foretold should come…

“In like manner, therefore, the circumcision on the eighth day, which was given to the patriarchs, foretold our justification, to the putting away of carnal lusts through the resurrection of our Lord, which took place after the seventh day, which is the Sabbath-day, on the eighth, that is, the Lord’s day, which fell on the third day after His burial; yet the infant Christ received the same circumcision of the flesh, with its prophetic signification. And as the Passover, which was celebrated by the Jews with the slaying of a lamb, prefigured the passion of our Lord and His departure from this world to the Father, yet the same Lord celebrated the same Passover with His disciples, when they reminded Him of it, saying, ‘Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover?’ so too He Himself also received the baptism of John, which formed a part of the latest foretelling of His coming. But as the Jews’ circumcision of the flesh is one thing, and the ceremony which we observe on the eighth day after persons are baptized is another; and the Passover which the Jews still celebrate with the slaying of a lamb is one thing, and that which we receive in the body and blood of our Lord is another,—so the baptism of John was one thing, the baptism of Christ is another. For by the former series of rites the latter were foretold as destined to arrive; by these latter the others are declared to be fulfilled. And even though Christ received the others, yet are they not necessary for us, who have received the Lord Himself who was foretold in them…

“Wherefore do not seek to raise confusion out of the baptism of John, the source and intention of which was either such as I have here set forth; or if any other better explanation of it can be given, this much still is clear, that the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ are two distinct and separate things, and that the former was expressly called the baptism of John, as is clear both from the answer of those men whose case you quoted, and from the words of our Lord Himself, when he says, ‘The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?’ But the latter is never called the baptism of Cæcilianus, or of Donatus, or of Augustin, or of Petilianus, but the baptism of Christ” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 37:87-88Answer to Petilian the Donatist).

In Christ,
Pete

 

[brb3]

An additional thought from Augustine of Hippo:

so the baptism of John was one thing, the baptism of Christ is another. For by the former series of rites the latter were foretold as destined to arrive; by these latter the others are declared to be fulfilled.

that the former was expressly called the baptism of John, as is clear both from the answer of those men whose case you quoted, and from the words of our Lord Himself, when he says, ‘The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?’ But the latter is never called the baptism of Cæcilianus, or of Donatus, or of Augustin, or of Petilianus, but the baptism of Christ” (Answer to Petilian the Donatist, Bk. 2, Ch. 37:87-88).[/indent]

So, St.Augustine gives the answer ! Yes, John’s Baptism was EFFICACIOUS.

Just as was those of Noah, Moses, and all water Purification Rites performed over the ages by God’s Prophets. Christ went to the underworld, before his Resurrection, and preached to the OT ancient saints. And, Perfected all those who had faithfully followed the prophets and believed in the Messiah to come … their baptisms made Efficacious by his preaching of the Cross to them and annointing/confirming them with Fire.

 

[NotWorthy]

So, St.Augustine gives the answer ! Yes, John’s Baptism was EFFICACIOUS.

Just as was those of Noah, Moses, and all water Purification Rites performed over the ages by God’s Prophets. Christ went to the underworld, before his Resurrection, and preached to the OT ancient saints. And, Perfected all those who had faithfully followed the prophets and believed in the Messiah to come … their baptisms made Efficacious by his preaching of the Cross to them and annointing/confirming them with Fire.

Keep stretching, brb!!!

I think “are declared to be fulfilled” in Augustine’s quote means their “foretelling” (or prophecies) are fullfilled.