Was John the Baptists's Baptisms efficacious?

[Bookcat]

Well thank you, Mr. Obvious!

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

My point was that it it the Sacrament “effects it” he actual does was away ones sins …not just a promise … but at the time of the Baptism…it effects what it signifies. Which is very different from the Baptism of repentance of John.

But I understand now that is what you meant

 

[NotWorthy]

My point was that it it the Sacrament “effects it” he actual does was away ones sins …not just a promise … but at the time of the Baptism…it effects what it signifies. Which is very different from the Baptism of repentance of John.

But I understand now that is what you meant

God Bless, brother, and keep up the good work!

 

[James224]

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…

Thanks Bookcat. I agree after reading Pope Benedict’s remarks. I also know St. Thomas is not infallible but I wonder what the church has said about St. Thomas’ quote? Here’s the whole thing:

“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.
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.” (Summa, Part 3, Q66, Art 2)

He may say something else later that I haven’t found so I’m going to look. I don’t mean to belabor this but I really, really want to get to the bottom of it. What I mean is that I want to know how to square this quote from the Summa with what Pope Benedict said if it’s possible. I may be reading into it too much. Also, I may call in and ask Tim Staples this week if possible to see what he would say.

Thanks for all your comments. They do mean a lot to me.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks Bookcat. I agree after reading Pope Benedict’s remarks. I also know St. Thomas is not infallible but I wonder what the church has said about St. Thomas’ quote? Here’s the whole thing:

“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.
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.” (Summa, Part 3, Q66, Art 2)

He may say something else later that I haven’t found so I’m going to look. I don’t mean to belabor this but I really, really want to get to the bottom of it. What I mean is that I want to know how to square this quote from the Summa with what Pope Benedict said if it’s possible. I may be reading into it too much. Also, I may call in and ask Tim Staples this week if possible to see what he would say.

Thanks for all your comments. They do mean a lot to me.

I’ve got to side with Thomas Aquinas on this one. I’d still like to go back and see all of St. Augustine’s quote. This smells like flowery language, rather than sound teaching.

 

[brb3]

I’ve got to side with Thomas Aquinas on this one. I’d still like to go back and see all of St. Augustine’s quote. This smells like flowery language, rather than sound teaching.

Augustine’s quote does speak of idealism, not actual reality. Acts 19 scripture proves Thomas A. correct. The fact that Apollos and friends had received Baptism of John, yet had not heard or received Holy Spirit thereafter, [following Christ’s entry into the waters] … proves Augustine incorrect.

John’s Baptism was one of Repentance, & that Christ would soon come and bring the Fire of H.S. Apollos and Friends had heard only of the Baptism of Repentance, [Step 1] … and not Step 2 to follow. Thus, Paul found it necessary to instruct them in the need for Step 2 [Confirmation], and accomplished their confirmations by laying on of ‘annointing’ hands Once, these 12 were rebaptized in water, in Name of Christ, Paul acting as Christ’s minister, was able to confer the H.S. upon them. Until the proper Sacramental language, given the Apostles by Christ was invoked, Paul was not ready to Confirm them with Step 2.

This proves that Paul was a strong believer/proponent of proper Water Baptism, otherwise he would not of re-baptized them … but would of gone ahead with Step 2, for these 12 believers.

 

[brb3]

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.

It would appear that these 12 Samaritans did not receive the normative Baptism of John … which was BOTH for repentance AND into the CHRIST to Come.

Even Paul is surprized to hear they had yet to hear of Christ. See Acts 19:4-5

Yes, when Paul ‘figured it out’ … he gave them their proper water baptism and then confirmed them. Would appear most others Baptized, by either John [OR HIS DISCIPLES] … had been baptized into a knowledge of Christ to come. The 12 Apostles … for example.

 

[NotWorthy]

It would appear that these 12 Samaritans did not receive the normative Baptism of John … which was BOTH for repentance AND into the CHRIST to Come.

Even Paul is surprized to hear they had yet to hear of Christ. See Acts 19:4-5

Yes, when Paul ‘figured it out’ … he gave them their proper water baptism and then confirmed them. Would appear most others Baptized, by either John [OR HIS DISCIPLES] … had been baptized into a knowledge of Christ to come. The 12 Apostles … for example.

I don’t recall ever seeing that the Apostles were baptized by John.

And yes, Paul was surprised that they hadn’t heard of Christ. But I think you are making a leap by assuming that they didn’t get the normative baptism of John. There’s nothing that indicates that John had more than one type of Baptism. His Baptism, as stated by others who are quoting the Catechism, was not a Baptism INTO Christ. Jesus would institute that through the Apostles three years later.

 

[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?

Can anyone find Augustine’s sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm., clxxxv). I looked on the New Advent site and can only find St. Thomas referencing this sermon. I’d like to read it so I can understand the context of St. Augustine’s words.

 

[James224]

Can anyone find Augustine’s sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm., clxxxv). I looked on the New Advent site and can only find St. Thomas referencing this sermon. I’d like to read it so I can understand the context of St. Augustine’s words.

Hi Notworthy,

You’re the man! I can see you are seeing what I see! Tim Staples won’t be on the radio this week so I can’t ask him. I couldn’t find St Augustine’s Sermon either. I have Logos with the ECF but I don’t have that sermon on there.

Here’s what I have come up with so far. Fr John Hardon’s Catechism says under “Baptism” then under the “Conciliar Changes” section (3rd paragraph), " Catholicism has never been vexed over the question of when exactly Christ instituted the first sacrament, except to suggest that a most likely time was when Christ was Himself Baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan, but the obligation to baptize was not promulgated by the Savior until shortly before His Ascension."

I think the answer to all of this depends on when you determine when Christ instituted Baptism. If you determine that Christ instituted Baptism at the Jordan, then you could interpet Acts 19:5 when it says, " Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" as referring to Confirmation along with verse 6. Paul, an apostle and Bishop, did this Baptism therefore this Baptism could mean Confirmation. Why? Because a Bishop is the normal person to do Confirmation and Paul did this in verse 5 only it’s referred to as Baptism. Also, Heb 6:2 refers to the Doctrine of Baptisms (plural) so one of these is referring to Confirmation so the word “Baptism” in verse 5 could mean Confirmation.

Now, the commentaries usually point to verse 5 as water Baptism but that’s because they look at the institution as happening at a different time than at the Jordan. So I don’t think St. Thomas is wrong and others aren’t wrong either in saying verse 5 is Water Baptism. It can be either one.

Does this make sense?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

And what of Jesus’ baptism, that is those by His apostles while He was still with them?

22* After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. 23 John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized…1* Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), 3 he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

John 3:22-23, 4:1

 

[James224]

Hi Notworthy!

Here’s another piece of evidence that backs this interpretation. Look at CCC 1288 footnote 98. One of the scripture references is Acts 19:5-6 - not just verse 6 but 5 & 6!

 

[brb3]

you could interpet Acts 19:5 when it says, " Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" as referring to Confirmation along with verse 6. Paul, an apostle and Bishop, did this Baptism therefore this Baptism could mean Confirmation. Why? Because a Bishop is the normal person to do Confirmation and Paul did this in verse 5 only it’s referred to as Baptism. Also, Heb 6:2 refers to the Doctrine of Baptisms (plural) so one of these is referring to Confirmation so the word “Baptism” in verse 5 could mean Confirmation.

Now, the commentaries usually point to verse 5 as water Baptism but that’s because they look at the institution as happening at a different time than at the Jordan. So I don’t think St. Thomas is wrong and others aren’t wrong either in saying verse 5 is Water Baptism. It can be either one.

Does this make sense?

Not really … I think we have to accept that Paul realized these 12, baptized by John’s disciples [probably AFTER John’s death] had failed to mention to these 12 that they were ALSO being baptized into Christ.

Paul, realized they had undergone an INSUFFICIENT baptism & needed a proper Baptism into Christ. Nevertheless, it was upon his subsequent Confirmation of them, that these now properly baptized 12 received H.S. from Christ.

This suggests to me that Paul believed that his Confirmation of them WOULD NOT or COULD NOT CONFER the H.S. upon them, until they were properly Baptized into Christ.

 

[NotWorthy]

And what of Jesus’ baptism, that is those by His apostles while He was still with them? John 3:22-23, 4:1

Remember, Jesus didn’t baptize anyone at this time. Think of the confusion that would have caused.

"Let’s see, I was baptized BY JESUS, but that wasn’t efficacious like the ones who were later baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS?!?!? What’s up with that?

 

[NotWorthy]

Not really … I think we have to accept that Paul realized these 12, baptized by John’s disciples [probably AFTER John’s death] had failed to mention to these 12 that they were ALSO being baptized into Christ.

Paul, realized they had undergone an INSUFFICIENT baptism & needed a proper Baptism into Christ. Nevertheless, it was upon his subsequent Confirmation of them, that these now properly baptized 12 received H.S. from Christ.

This suggests to me that Paul believed that his Confirmation of them WOULD NOT or COULD NOT CONFER the H.S. upon them, until they were properly Baptized into Christ.

We don’t know that John’s disciples did any baptizing after John’s death or if they even remained as “John’s Disciples”. Remember John preached that, “He must increase while I must decrease”. John even sent several of his disciples to Jesus (while John was in prison). I’ve always assumed that John did this so that his disciples could find out for themselves that Jesus was “The Real Deal” and that they would follow Him and encourage all John’s other disciples to follow him.

With that reasoning, St. Paul realized that the Samaritans hadn’t received the Holy Spirit yet, because they had received simply a baptism of repentance. You know, think of it as an ancient “Altar Call”!!!

On second thought, I’d better strike that last comment because the last thing I want to do is let some Protestant brothers think that altar calls are Scriptural.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi Notworthy!

Here’s another piece of evidence that backs this interpretation. Look at CCC 1288 footnote 98. One of the scripture references is Acts 19:5-6 - not just verse 6 but 5 & 6!

That is correct. Just as adults are today, these Ephesians were baptized and confirmed (laying on of hands) in the same scene. It would seem that Paul realized that they weren’t confirmed yet, for he knew they wouldn’t have had their hands laid on them during a Baptism of John.

But if Paul recognized that the Baptism of John was efficacious, then he wouldn’t have re-baptized them.

 

[James224]

That is correct. Just as adults are today, these Ephesians were baptized and confirmed (laying on of hands) in the same scene. It would seem that Paul realized that they weren’t confirmed yet, for he knew they wouldn’t have had their hands laid on them during a Baptism of John.

But if Paul recognized that the Baptism of John was efficacious, then he wouldn’t have re-baptized them.

Amen! I sure am happy about researching all this because it has been a problem to me for a long, long time. I don’t know why I couldn’t get these facts earlier. I guess it’s hard to believe that there could be 2 interpretations and that’s why. It’s sort of rare for that to happen. Having said that, I was reading Acts 10 about the Baptism of Cornelius. In verses 46 & 47 it talks about his Baptism and it is water Baptism and the language is the same as in Acts 19:5 so I see where it can be water Baptism in Acts 19:5 too. The Baptism of Cornelius is one used against us by protestants saying Cornelius already received the Holy Ghost before water Baptism. The church says this points to the necessity of Baptism. Another reason this happened is because no gentiles had been baptized so it was new and was necessary so the Apostles would understand that they should baptize gentiles. Oh well, that’s another subject.

Thanks again for looking at this with me and helping me. I won’t forget you for it!

God bless,

 

[James224]

Not really … I think we have to accept that Paul realized these 12, baptized by John’s disciples [probably AFTER John’s death] had failed to mention to these 12 that they were ALSO being baptized into Christ.

Paul, realized they had undergone an INSUFFICIENT baptism & needed a proper Baptism into Christ. Nevertheless, it was upon his subsequent Confirmation of them, that these now properly baptized 12 received H.S. from Christ.

This suggests to me that Paul believed that his Confirmation of them WOULD NOT or COULD NOT CONFER the H.S. upon them, until they were properly Baptized into Christ.

Hello brb3!

I understand and that’s a legitimate interpretation but St. Thomas and others seem to see it another way. All I’m saying is that both interpretations are acceptable. The way I see it is that it doesn’t matter whether Paul thought they hadn’t been baptized into Christ but, rather, when Baptism was instituted. If Baptism was insttitued by Christ at the Jordan, then you could say that Paul knew they were Baptized into Christ and that’s why Acts 19:5 is really referring to Confirmation.

Here’s, maybe a way of looking at these verses that help:

Acts 19:5-6, " Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. and the way he baptized them in the Lord Jesus is19:6. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them: and they spoke with tongues and prophesied."

Adding this line in there sort of connects the two verses in the way I’m trying show you. The way Paul Baptized them in the Lord Jesus is by imposing his hands on them, etc. In this way, both verses are talking about Confirmation.

 

[James224]

Not really … I think we have to accept that Paul realized these 12, baptized by John’s disciples [probably AFTER John’s death] had failed to mention to these 12 that they were ALSO being baptized into Christ.

Paul, realized they had undergone an INSUFFICIENT baptism & needed a proper Baptism into Christ. Nevertheless, it was upon his subsequent Confirmation of them, that these now properly baptized 12 received H.S. from Christ.

This suggests to me that Paul believed that his Confirmation of them WOULD NOT or COULD NOT CONFER the H.S. upon them, until they were properly Baptized into Christ.

Hi brb3,

I wanted to comment more directly on your comment above. I think you are referring to Acts 19:3-4 which says, " 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." Your interpretation is correct, however, you could say that those baptized into John just didn’t know they were baptized into Christ because they hadn’t been fully instructed and, when they were Baptized, they didn’t realize that they had been baptized into Christ. It was a new sacrament. However, they did know that they believed in Christ. (see below) Scripture doesn’t make it absolutely certain whether Paul accepted their water baptism as being baptized into Christ or not.

Here’s a possible interpretation of verse 4. It starts out saying “Paul said” but then the rest of the verse may be a quote from John rather than Paul! If this is true, then John’s Baptism required the people to believe in the one who was to come after him (John), that is, in Jesus. So when they were baptized, they believed in Jesus, therefore, they were baptized into Jesus. Then when Christ plunged into the Jordan, the power of the sacrament was there making their baptism legitimate.

Your interpretation is the more literal one but I think it’s ok to interpret verse 5 in the another way. I know I may not have explained it well enough but it’s a start. I’ll listen out for your comments. Thanks for looking at this with me.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hello brb3!

I understand and that’s a legitimate interpretation but St. Thomas and others seem to see it another way. All I’m saying is that both interpretations are acceptable. The way I see it is that it doesn’t matter whether Paul thought they hadn’t been baptized into Christ but, rather, when Baptism was instituted. If Baptism was insttitued by Christ at the Jordan, then you could say that Paul knew they were Baptized into Christ and that’s why Acts 19:5 is really referring to Confirmation.

Here’s, maybe a way of looking at these verses that help:

Acts 19:5-6, " Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. and the way he baptized them in the Lord Jesus is19:6. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them: and they spoke with tongues and prophesied."

Adding this line in there sort of connects the two verses in the way I’m trying show you. The way Paul Baptized them in the Lord Jesus is by imposing his hands on them, etc. In this way, both verses are talking about Confirmation.

Ahhh, the Holy Spirit was interjecting Himself into the Cornelius affair. If He hadn’t, then Cornelius and the gang would have gone through circumcision prior to baptism.

I think some of them may have lost their religious zeal if they were faced with circumcision as a pre-requisite for Baptism.

Remember, God sets up norms for His Church to act, but He is not bound by those limitations. That helps to explain Cornelius and even the Good Thief on the Cross, “For all things are possible with God”!

 

[brb3]

a possible interpretation of verse 4. It starts out saying “Paul said” but then the rest of the verse may be a quote from John rather than Paul! If this is true, then John’s Baptism required the people to believe in the one who was to come after him (John), that is, in Jesus. So when they were baptized, they believed in Jesus, therefore, they were baptized into Jesus. Then when Christ plunged into the Jordan, the power of the sacrament was there making their baptism legitimate.

Clearly these 12 came to Paul AFTER Christ had entered the water … probably 8-12 years late, in 40-50 AD. So Paul doesn’t accept them as w/o exception, duly baptized, on basis of Christ completing / making ALL prior baptisms SACRAMENTAL when He was baptized by John.

Paul is making his judgment solely on basis of these 12 saying they had previously been baptized … yet had not received the H.S. Paul instinctively knew some error had occurred with their baptisms … which Christ entering the water had not FIXED !!!

The ONLY explanation that makes sense to me is exactly what ACTS 19 tells us. Paul asks if they were Baptized into Christ … and they say NO. As Christ taught in scriptures … “No one comes to the Father, except by the Son” . Paul knew w/o their baptism into Christ … he [Paul] could not Confirm the H.S. upon them. He needed to FIX their errant baptism problem. The only way … was to give them the Christian Baptism that Paul himself had received … since they had not received the NORMATIVE one of John, which in majority of cases 12 Apostles for example] … had been done properly and included BOTH repentance and belief in the Christ to come.