Was John the Baptists's Baptisms efficacious?

[NotWorthy]

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?

“He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even in his mother’s womb”. I would think that this is at least equal to (if not greater than) the effects of Baptism.

 

[NotWorthy]

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

I speak of Baptism as “The Normative Means of receiving the Holy Spirit for the first time in our soul, removing Original Sin…”, stressing the word “normative”. This does not mean it is the only means of receiving the Holy Spirit for the first time in our lives, just the way the the Church will distribute God’s graces among the Faithful.

John’s Baptism would not fit that bill… Even John makes that clear, as others have mentioned. “I baptize with water. But He Who is coming after me will baptize with Spirit and with Fire”.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, John’s Baptism was able to bring grace to the recipient … to the degree their repentence preceded their washing. Same applies today.

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.

Nobody is claiming that the Holy Spirit did not pre-exist Pentecost.

BRB, you seem to be ignoring the teaching of the Church as others have presented it. I wouldn’t have thought this from you, and I hope I am wrong.

John himself claimed that his baptisms were different than the ones to come. John’s Baptisms pointed to the Baptisms that were to come in the New Covenant.

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

Than you are forgetting the points made about the Samaritans who had been baptized, but hadn’t received the Holy Spirit. When questioning them about this, St. Paul was puzzled. But he figured it out. “By who’s Baptism were you baptized?” he asked. He linked the “lack of Holy Spirit” with the form of baptism and then he re-baptized them, this time using the formula set up by Jesus.

According to your logic (as posted above), the Samaritans would not have had to be re-baptized.

 

[StrawberryJam]

“He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even in his mother’s womb”. I would think that this is at least equal to (if not greater than) the effects of Baptism.

That is a load off my mind. I thought he was going to get the heave ho of some sorts, and not the kind of recognition I can even see he is worthy of.
By the way, your user name is bothersome…

You just helped me with a question. I am having a hard time considering you “Not Worthy” even though I understand the concept of humility…

You are worthy to me.

 

[NotWorthy]

That is a load off my mind. I thought he was going to get the heave ho of some sorts, and not the kind of recognition I can even see he is worthy of.

The Church recognizes John the Baptist as a Saint. There is no “heave ho” in store for our grasshopper eating voice in the wilderness. I bet he was a trip to see.

By the way, your user name is bothersome…

You just helped me with a question. I am having a hard time considering you “Not Worthy” even though I understand the concept of humility…

You are worthy to me.

Thank you very much! But the moniker is helpful, for I often suffer from lack of humility. Besides, I often get to laugh to myself at Mass when I consider that I get to say my name out loud to Jesus in the Mass. “Lord I am Notworthy…!”. I mean, how many people can make that claim?!? Of course, that makes me have to deal with this whole humility thing once again… oh well.

 

[brb3]

John himself claimed that his baptisms were different than the ones to come. John’s Baptisms pointed to the Baptisms that were to come in the New Covenant.

Yes, John knew that while he ‘washed’ those who believed in the Messiah to come, those who came to him with true repentance, he turned away the Pharisees, etc] … he didn’t possess the power to confer the H.S. upon them.

He taught them that the coming Messiah would bring the Fire of H.S. upon them. Same applies today. We know our Pastors and Priests cannot confer the H.S. upon another. They wash the believers in water, they say the Trinitarian Formula, but when its all said and done … they must have assistance of Christ to bring the H.S. down upon the one being Baptized/Confirmed.

This is exactly what occurred with John’s Baptism. Yes, there may of been a time delay, between his Baptism of them and their receipt of H.S. from Christ … nevertheless, these believers received grace upon grace, forgivenesss, and admittance to the Kingdom that Christ ushered in upon them during his ministry.

The Father had already prepared mankind for baptism. Washing Noah and Family in the 40 day flood, the Israelites who crossed the Red Sea, those who crossed over the Jordan into the Promise Land, the Leper who had to wash 7 X’s in the Jordan to receive his healing, etc. All these and many more received graces and the H.S. from their OT time experiences. Recall that John was baptized [in the Womb] when he came into the presence of the Lord … and Christ saw no need to re-baptize him in later adulthood, when they met a second time.

Catholics understand all this … they can’t deny that ONLY the Father and the Son can redeem the lost, bring forgiveness to the contrite heart, and bring the indwelling H.S. to the ones being washed in water and confirmed with hands laid upon.

For Catholics to believe/claim that John’s Baptism was only symbolic, lacked graces, and didn’t prepare the Apostles and 1st Century believers to later receive the H.S. from Christ is ludicrous.

Was it Sacramental ? I’d say so. All who received baptism from John were shortly to be introduced to the Messiah … who made John’s baptism complete.

 

[brb3]

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.

:yup:

 

[brb3]

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).

Go on my friend. Give us the full story on this !!!

Acts 19:5-6 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had LAID HIS HANDS UPON THEM; confirmed … :doh2: ] the HOLY SPIRIT came on them; and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Was it the re-baptism … or the confirmation that brought the H.S. from Christ to them ??

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, John knew that while he ‘washed’ those who believed in the Messiah to come, those who came to him with true repentance, he turned away the Pharisees, etc] … he didn’t possess the power to confer the H.S. upon them.

He taught them that the coming Messiah would bring the Fire of H.S. upon them. Same applies today. We know our Pastors and Priests cannot confer the H.S. upon another. They wash the believers in water, they say the Trinitarian Formula, but when its all said and done … they must have assistance of Christ to bring the H.S. down upon the one being Baptized/Confirmed.

This is exactly what occurred with John’s Baptism. Yes, there may of been a time delay, between his Baptism of them and their receipt of H.S. from Christ … nevertheless, these believers received grace upon grace, forgivenesss, and admittance to the Kingdom that Christ ushered in upon them during his ministry.

The Father had already prepared mankind for baptism. Washing Noah and Family in the 40 day flood, the Israelites who crossed the Red Sea, those who crossed over the Jordan into the Promise Land, the Leper who had to wash 7 X’s in the Jordan to receive his healing, etc. All these and many more received graces and the H.S. from their OT time experiences. Recall that John was baptized [in the Womb] when he came into the presence of the Lord … and Christ saw no need to re-baptize him in later adulthood, when they met a second time.

Catholics understand all this … they can’t deny that ONLY the Father and the Son can redeem the lost, bring forgiveness to the contrite heart, and bring the indwelling H.S. to the ones being washed in water and confirmed with hands laid upon.

For Catholics to believe/claim that John’s Baptism was only symbolic, lacked graces, and didn’t prepare the Apostles and 1st Century believers to later receive the H.S. from Christ is ludicrous.

Was it Sacramental ? I’d say so. All who received baptism from John were shortly to be introduced to the Messiah … who made John’s baptism complete.

John’s Baptism in the womb was one of those exceptions. Sacramental Baptism is the normal means of dispensing Graces.

A Sacrament was instituted by Christ. John’s Baptisms pre-figure Christ, but were not instituted by Christ.

What does the Church say makes a Baptism valid.
“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Unless you can show me that John did that, I will continue to deny that his baptisms were Sacramental. God may have dispensed His Graces to those people that repented and were baptized by John, but that would still be the exception, not the norm.

 

[James224]

Than you are forgetting the points made about the Samaritans who had been baptized, but hadn’t received the Holy Spirit. When questioning them about this, St. Paul was puzzled. But he figured it out. “By who’s Baptism were you baptized?” he asked. He linked the “lack of Holy Spirit” with the form of baptism and then he re-baptized them, this time using the formula set up by Jesus.

According to your logic (as posted above), the Samaritans would not have had to be re-baptized.

Thanks Notworthy. I’m sure you are right and it makes sense. I realize I’m probably looking at these verses the hard way. What I don’t understand is how St. Thomas can say that Baptism was instituted at the Jordan. He says in the Summa, Q66, A2, "
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm., clxxxv): “As soon as Christ was plunged into the waters, the waters washed away the sins of all.” But this was before Christ’s Passion. Therefore Baptism was instituted before Christ’s Passion." If the waters were sanctified then, how could John’s Baptism not be a Baptism into Christ? I know I’m just missing something here because St. Thomas is right too, I just don’t know what it is. Can you comment on this quote?

 

[brb3]

I will continue to deny that his baptisms were Sacramental. God may have dispensed His Graces to those people that repented and were baptized by John, but that would still be the exception, not the norm.

Were they Efficacious ? That is the operative word.

John’s baptizms were not the exception … for the Rule [normative sacrament] had yet to be established. They were what they were … desired by God, approved and sought by Christ for himself, and able to bring efficacious graces & salvation to the recipients both Apostles and laymen/women alike].

 

[NotWorthy]

Were they Efficacious ? That is the operative word.

John’s baptizms were not the exception … for the Rule [normative sacrament] had yet to be established. They were what they were … desired by God, approved and sought by Christ for himself, and able to bring efficacious graces & salvation to the recipients both Apostles and laymen/women alike].

So… what you’re saying is that John’s Baptisms were efficacious depending on the Holy Spirit and the recipient? Well, that could be true of any event in the history of the world, for the Spirit blows where It will.

That doesn’t make John’s Baptism efficacious, though.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks Notworthy. I’m sure you are right and it makes sense. I realize I’m probably looking at these verses the hard way. What I don’t understand is how St. Thomas can say that Baptism was instituted at the Jordan. He says in the Summa, Q66, A2, "
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm., clxxxv): “As soon as Christ was plunged into the waters, the waters washed away the sins of all.” But this was before Christ’s Passion. Therefore Baptism was instituted before Christ’s Passion." If the waters were sanctified then, how could John’s Baptism not be a Baptism into Christ? I know I’m just missing something here because St. Thomas is right too, I just don’t know what it is. Can you comment on this quote?

I’ll take a look at those quotes, as well as the context in which they were written.

Thanks for the heads up.

But, bear in mind, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine did not teach infallibly. The Magisterium does, however.

 

[Bookcat]

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.

This is not what the Church teaches or what Pope Benedict XVI or I mean…Johns baptism was ONLY a Baptism of repentance. Period.

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.

Yes…they needed Christian Baptism…John’s was only one of repentance…

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks Notworthy. If the waters were sanctified then, how could John’s Baptism not be a Baptism into Christ? I know I’m just missing something here because St. Thomas is right too, I just don’t know what it is. Can you comment on this quote?

No…this is not how the Church understands it. Jesus can sanctify the waters for later Christian Baptism…it had nothing to do with the Jordon…or the waters of John’s or “anyones baptism” that used water…for there were other baptisms than John’s…

It refers only to Christian Baptism.

Johns was and remained…very different (as Pope Benedict XVI mentioned above)

Christian Baptism is a Baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…and doing what the Church does…

 

[brb3]

John’s Baptisms were efficacious depending on the Holy Spirit and the recipient? Well, that could be true of any event in the history of the world, for the Spirit blows where It will.

That doesn’t make John’s Baptism efficacious, though.

Nothing is efficacious for us … unless the heart is right. Exhibit A … ‘Good’ Thief on Cross. Went to Paradise w/o even John’s Baptism. Yet he petitioned the Master for forgiveness / remembrance … and it was granted him. Exhibit B … Judas, had Baptism of John and fellowship with Christ, yet he denied Christ and his faith, failing to persevere.

No Catholic Sacramental Baptism or Confirmation is efficacious today … unless the recipient is duly disposed to receive it. Christ alone knows the heart … and His H.S. will blow into that recipient when it is needed and desired. His H.S. will also leave any Catholic, having been duly Baptised/Confirmed … when the heart is unrepentant, unforgiving, and in open rebellion, Mortal Sinning, against God.

 

[NotWorthy]

Nothing is efficacious for us … unless the heart is right. Exhibit A … ‘Good’ Thief on Cross. Went to Paradise w/o even John’s Baptism. Yet he petitioned the Master for forgiveness / remembrance … and it was granted him. Exhibit B … Judas, had Baptism of John and fellowship with Christ, yet he denied Christ and his faith, failing to persevere.

No Catholic Sacramental Baptism or Confirmation is efficacious today … unless the recipient is duly disposed to receive it. Christ alone knows the heart … and His H.S. will blow into that recipient when it is needed and desired. His H.S. will also leave any Catholic, having been duly Baptised/Confirmed … when the heart is unrepentant, unforgiving, and in open rebellion, Mortal Sinning, against God.

True, very true.

But…

If I am truly repentant and come to be baptized, Christ promises that my sins will be washed away.

If a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin was truly repentant and came to John to be baptized, we don’t know that his sins were washed away. Christ was silent on that matter.

The thief was an exception. Not every thief that repented moments prior to death is promised to be in paradise with our Lord. But if a thief is repentant and is baptized (for the first time) immediately before his execution, the Church tells us that he is going to heaven, unless he finds a way to commit a mortal crime in his remaining moments in life.

 

[Bookcat]

True, very true.

But…

If I am truly repentant and come to be baptized, Christ promises that my sins will be washed away.

Jesus DOES wash away your sins (and all the other effects of Baptism are given) in Baptism …not just a promise

If a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin was truly repentant and came to John to be baptized, we don’t know that his sins were washed away. Christ was silent on that matter.

Certainly not “washed away” as in Christian Baptism…but may have been “forgiven” in the mercy of God etc …we do not know. But what we do know is that it was not Christian Baptism but a sign of repentance.

 

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by NotWorthy forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

But…

If I am truly repentant and come to be baptized, Christ promises that my sins will be washed away.

Bookcat:

Jesus DOES wash away your sins (and all the other effects of Baptism are given) in Baptism …not just a promise

Well thank you, Mr. Obvious!

I assumed that the statement “Christ promises to wash away sins” was equal to “Jesus does wash away sins”.