N
NotWorthy
Guest
Or is John’s Baptisms completely different than the Baptisms done beginning in Acts chapter 2 (after the Pentecost)?
- Status
B
Bookcat
Guest
yes they were completely different.
They were baptisms of repentance.
NOT Christian Baptism (which is a Sacrament…and is so rich…read Paul and CCC )
C
Cristiano
Guest
Only one was! 
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I agree 110%, but I invited a friend to discuss this, because we were in danger of derailing another thread.
C
Cachonga
Guest
Just read Acts 19:1-8. Verse 3-5 reads ‘And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.’ (RSV).
B
brb3
Guest
You claim they were not sacramental refer you to 4/14/08 post of yours to the thread: “Two tough questions about Jesus’s Baptism”.
The operative word for them is efficacious. They were Efficacious … :yup:
B
brb3
Guest
John taught of the one to come after him … and those who were Baptized by him believed in the Christ to come … which made his baptism operative/efficacious.
See Matt 3:11 " I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize you with the H.S. and with fire."
J
James224
Guest
I’m going to throw a curve into some of the answers so far. Some think they were Baptisms. This is a question of when Christ instituted Baptism. If I remember correctly, Fr John Harden said it was possible because, after Christ plunged into the Jordan, they became effecacious. It’s just that it wasn’t the normal means yet or absolutely required as a sacrament. St. Thomas Aquinas and some of the early church fathers believed it was when Christ plunged into the Jordan (Matt 3:16, John 1:29-33). Others say it was when Christ said in Matt 28:19 which says, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” This was when Christ “Commanded” it but may not be when He instituted it. St.Thomas says "I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 1), sacraments derive from their institution the power of conferring grace. Wherefore it seems that a sacrament is then instituted, when it receives the power of producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ was baptized. Consequently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we consider it as a sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this sacrament was proclaimed to mankind after the Passion and Resurrection. (Q66, A2, Part 3) I’m aware of the verses used, especially Acts 19. Heb 6:2 speaks of “Baptisms” and we know we are only Baptized once so the plural used points to Confirmation. In Acts 19:2-6 says, “19:2. And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. 19:3. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John’s baptism. 19:4. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance saying: That they should believe in him, who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. 19:5. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 19:6. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them: and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.” How you interpret these verses depends on when you believe Christ instituted Baptism. Here’s a possible interpretation taking the Baptism of John as the time of institution. In verse 4, I think you would interpret John as saying (instead of Paul) “That they should believe in him, who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus.” Then, in verse 5, when it says they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus, this should be taken as coupled with verse 6 so the two verses togeather means Confirmation.
I know it’s hard to accept this but St. Thomas believed the institution came at the Jordan. I’m not saying I’m right so do your research.
B
Bookcat
Guest
James “of St. Thomas” (above): yes of course one can say that with the Baptism of Christ by John …that “Jesus sanctified the waters for baptism later…” …that is the Baptism of Jesus of Nazareth “sanctifed the waters”…etc…but this was not an effect of the “John’s Baptism”… but of Christ.
John’s baptism however was and remained a “baptism of repentance” (Thomas would agree with this) …those who were baptized by him were not yet Christians…did not receive the Sacrament.
Later Christian Baptism would be given in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…by his disciples after he commands them to do so…
John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance…not the Sacrament of Baptism. This is clear.
In Acts those when those who had been baptized only by John were encountered…they had to be baptized with Christian baptism…and then received the Holy Spirit…
**
The Catechism of the Catholic Church:**
720 Finally, with John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit begins the restoration to man of “the divine likeness,” prefiguring what he would achieve with and in Christ. John’s baptism was for repentance; baptism in water and the Spirit will be a new birth.
Johns Baptism was for repentance…it is only with Christian Baptism that one will be baptized in water and the Spirit …and it is the baptism that brings new birth.
"Returning now to the Gospel passage, let us seek to better understand what is happening today. St Mark recounts that it was just when John the Baptist was preaching on the banks of the River Jordan, proclaiming the urgent need for conversion in view of the now imminent coming of the Messiah, that Jesus, who was among the crowds, presented himself to be baptized. John’s Baptism is indisputably a Baptism of penance, very different from the sacrament that Jesus was to institute. "–Pope Benedict XVI
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090111_battesimo_en.html
The baptism John offers is one of repentance, a sign that is an invitation to conversion, to a change of life, because One is coming who will “baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (3: 16). —Pope Benedict XVI
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20100110_battesimo_en.html
John’s baptism however was and remained a “baptism of repentance” (Thomas would agree with this) …those who were baptized by him were not yet Christians…did not receive the Sacrament.
Later Christian Baptism would be given in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…by his disciples after he commands them to do so…
John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance…not the Sacrament of Baptism. This is clear.
In Acts those when those who had been baptized only by John were encountered…they had to be baptized with Christian baptism…and then received the Holy Spirit…
**
The Catechism of the Catholic Church:**
720 Finally, with John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit begins the restoration to man of “the divine likeness,” prefiguring what he would achieve with and in Christ. John’s baptism was for repentance; baptism in water and the Spirit will be a new birth.
Johns Baptism was for repentance…it is only with Christian Baptism that one will be baptized in water and the Spirit …and it is the baptism that brings new birth.
"Returning now to the Gospel passage, let us seek to better understand what is happening today. St Mark recounts that it was just when John the Baptist was preaching on the banks of the River Jordan, proclaiming the urgent need for conversion in view of the now imminent coming of the Messiah, that Jesus, who was among the crowds, presented himself to be baptized. John’s Baptism is indisputably a Baptism of penance, very different from the sacrament that Jesus was to institute. "–Pope Benedict XVI
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090111_battesimo_en.html
The baptism John offers is one of repentance, a sign that is an invitation to conversion, to a change of life, because One is coming who will “baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (3: 16). —Pope Benedict XVI
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20100110_battesimo_en.html
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Please don’t tell me you are going to parse words here, brother. By Efficacious, I mean, do they normatively bestow graces.
[/QUOTE]
B
Bookcat
Guest
"Returning now to the Gospel passage, let us seek to better understand what is happening today. St Mark recounts that it was just when John the Baptist was preaching on the banks of the River Jordan, proclaiming the urgent need for conversion in view of the now imminent coming of the Messiah, that Jesus, who was among the crowds, presented himself to be baptized. John’s Baptism is indisputably a Baptism of penance, very different from the sacrament that Jesus was to institute. "–Pope Benedict XVI
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7278013&postcount=9
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
No one is wondering if John was himself Baptised. I asked a priest about that. He told me that was a dumb question.
I don’t know why it is a dumb question.
I don’t know why it is a dumb question.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
It’s not a dumb question. But the answer is still is still “No, John was not Sacramentally Baptized” (IOW, Baptized “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”).
We receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and Jesus was clear in John’s Gospel that He (Jesus) must leave in order for the Holy Spirit to come. Sacramental Baptisms were not available for the Faithful until the Spirit came at Pentecost.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Thank you,
But what of his desire? Isn’t it clear it started before he was born? He lept in his mother’s womb. Isn’t there Baptism of desire?
M
mlund
Guest
It isn’t a dumb question, but it is certainly a moot point - trivia as opposed to theological meat and potatoes.
John was the Herald of the Lamb, one of God’s chosen prophets, and he was martyred for the sake of Jesus Christ. Even if John the Baptist never received baptism of water as instituted by Jesus like other disciples did in John chapter 3 (the Bible is silent on this matter either way), he surely then would have had baptism by the virtue of his martyrdom for Christ’s sake. Remember, there are three legitimate mediums of baptism - by water, by desire, and by blood.
So, without equivocation, St. John the Baptist went to his reward baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He received the fruits of baptism he earned, even if he did no participate in the traditional sacrament. Remember, a sacrament is an outward sign of an inner grace. In martyrdom one receives the inner grace of baptism despite failing to receive the outward sign.
- Marty Lund
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Baptism by blood and desire then. Got it. Thank you
M
mlund
Guest
Is that entirely accurate, though?
The Gospel makes it clear that the Spirit has already been at work in the world before Christ’s ministry as the Power of the Holy Spirit causes the Incarnation to be. Additionally the Nicinean Creed states authoritatively that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the prophets. Also, in Jesus’s own baptism the Holy Spirit descends upon him.
Even John’s own prophecy says that Jesus is the one who will come and baptize with the Holy Spirit - and Jesus does depart from John and begin to baptize disciples in John Chapter 3.
Also, the Slaughter of the Holy Innocents in Matthew marks another occasion before the Ascension where we see Sainted martyrs - those who know the fruits of baptism.
Then there is Jesus’s baptism by blood in his Passion, instituted in Luke’s Gospel.
While the Ascension marks the end of Christ’s age on the earth and the beginning of the Holy Spirit’s era, I don’t see why it would mark the beginning of sacramental baptism as Jesus already instituted Baptism while alive.
- Marty Lund
B
brb3
Guest
Yes, John’s Baptism was able to bring grace to the recipient … to the degree their repentence preceded their washing. Same applies today.By Efficacious, I mean, do they normatively bestow graces.
Christ always has and will know the status of our confessions and desire to fully repent. When we do so, in accord with his will for us … we will be graced. The H.S. existed prior to Pentecost in OT believers.
J
James224
Guest
Very good research! Still, even Pope Benedicts words saying the sacrament is very different from John’s Baptism, doesn’t mean that the institution of the sacrament didn’t take place at the Jordan with Jesus’ Baptism. At that time, the Sacrament was not fully understood. You said “Jesus sanctified the waters for baptism later…” . St. Thomas does not make that disctinction between those who were Baptized by John PRIOR to Jesus’ Baptism in the Jordan. In other words, the sacrament covers all those Baptized by John in the Jordan retroactively.It does say you need more than John’s Baptism but they got that when Jesus was Baptized. This is my interpretation and I may be wrong but it seems Christ sanctified the waters in which all of them were Baptized. This is why when Acts 19 uses the term “Baptism” it can mean “Confirmation” in verse 5 and, therefore, verses 5 & 6 both refer to Confirmation. Now, if you are correct, then verse 5 means they were Baptized and then in verse 6 they were Confirmed.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
- Status