Was John the Baptists's Baptisms efficacious?

[brb3]

John Chrysostom: “ ‘After this,’ says the Evangelist, ‘He went forth and His disciples into the land of Judæa, and there He tarried with them and baptized.’ … Yet the Evangelist farther on says, that ‘Jesus baptized not, but His disciples’; whence it is clear that this is his meaning here also. And why did Jesus not baptize? The Baptist had said before, ‘He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.’ Now he had not yet given the Spirit, and it was therefore with good cause that he did not baptize. But His disciples did so, because they desired to bring many to the saving doctrine” (Homily 29 on the Gospel of John).

“[H]ow says Luke, ‘that he came into the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?’ (Luke 3:3) And yet it had not remission, but this gift pertained unto the baptism that was given afterwards; for in this ‘we are buried with Him,’ and our old man was then crucified with Him, and before the cross there does not appear remission anywhere; for everywhere this is imputed to His blood. And Paul too says, ‘But you are washed, but you are sanctified,’ not by the baptism of John, but ‘in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God’ (1 Corinthians 6:11). And elsewhere too he says, ‘John verily preached a baptism of repentance,’ (he says not of remission,) ‘that they should believe in Him that should come after him’ (Acts 19:4). For when the sacrifice was not yet offered, neither had the spirit yet come down, nor sin was put away, nor the enmity removed, nor the curse destroyed; how was remission to take place? What means then, ‘for the remission of sins’?…he adds, ‘for remission,’ as though he said, ‘For this end he exhorted them to confess and repent of their sins; not that they should be punished, but that they might more easily receive the subsequent remission. For had they not condemned themselves, they could not have sought after His grace; and not seeking, they could not have obtained remission’ ” (Homily 10 on Matthew).

Aquinas: “[T]he whole teaching and work of John was in preparation for Christ: just as it is the duty of the servant and of the under-craftsman to prepare the matter for the form which is accomplished by the head-craftsman. Now grace was to be conferred on men through Christ, according to John 1:17: ‘Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.’ Therefore the baptism of John did not confer grace, but only prepared the way for grace” (Summa Theologica).

“John’s baptism neither conferred grace nor imprinted a character, but was merely ‘in water,’ as he says himself (Matthew 3:11). Wherefore the faith or hope which the person baptized had in Christ could not supply this defect. Secondly, because, when in a sacrament, that is omitted which belongs of necessity to the sacrament, not only must the omission be supplied, but the whole must be entirely renewed. Now, it belongs of necessity to Christ’s baptism that it be given not only in water, but also in the Holy Ghost, according to John 3:5: ‘Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ Wherefore in the case of those who had been baptized with John’s baptism in water only (cf. Acts 19:3-5), not merely had the omission to be supplied by giving them the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, but they had to be baptized wholly anew ‘in water and the Holy Ghost.’

…]

“The reason why these persons were baptized after being baptized by John was not only because they knew not of the Holy Ghost, but also because they had not received the baptism of Christ”
(Summa Theologica).

OH YEAH … more crucial info from the Catholic Experts, ECF’s and otherwise.

You nailed it Pete Holter … you get the Research Award

 

[NotWorthy]

With prophetic recapitulation it is easy to do. When you realize that even the life of Jesus is a shadow of the Son in eternity, then sometimes it is easier to start with the end and work backwards.

Its sort of like watching the movie “Sixth Sense” all over again and understanding all the clues that the movie was saturated with.

 

[NotWorthy]

Always go with what Christ says … about ALL matters !!! His word is the Final Authority.

I know NotWorthy is good on scripture … but, not infallible

Infallible??? Once I thought I was infallible, but I was mistaken…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I think you misunderstand Pope Benedict’s meaning on this. Christ’s Baptism was also based on REPENTANCE. Indeed, repentance is always the prerequisite event [for adults receiving].

Christ took John’s Baptism [of Repentance and Belief in the Christ to Come] … and completes it by bringing forth the Holy Spirit he received from the Father, when he underwent John’s Baptism by water. Not that Christ needed repentance, but as he said … it was needed to FULFILL the scriptures.

The Baptism of Christ involves two matters 1.) John’s Baptism [Water washing, as a demonstration of one’s repentance] … per Peter. 2.) Receipt of Holy Spirit … [act of Christ on the repentant one, washed of water].

Per Christ … "yea must be born OF WATER & SPIRIT. Man does his part, Christ does his part. A ‘Covenantal matter’ that brings true renewal / conversion .

Your outlook appears to be that Christ is completing the spiritual side of the coin, and John’s the physical. If this is indeed your position (if I am misrepresenting it I apologize ahead of time) I disagree, partially because of the early Church witness Pete already gave:

“John’s baptism neither conferred grace nor imprinted a character, but was merely ‘in water,’ as he says himself (Matthew 3:11). Wherefore the faith or hope which the person baptized had in Christ could not supply this defect. Secondly, because, when in a sacrament, that is omitted which belongs of necessity to the sacrament, not only must the omission be supplied, but the whole must be entirely renewed. Now, it belongs of necessity to Christ’s baptism that it be given not only in water, but also in the Holy Ghost, according to John 3:5: ‘Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ Wherefore in the case of those who had been baptized with John’s baptism in water only (cf. Acts 19:3-5), not merely had the omission to be supplied by giving them the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, but they had to be baptized wholly anew ‘in water and the Holy Ghost.’

Jesus’ baptism (applied to others) appears to be Sacramental, not a spiritual completion to John’s baptism of repentance, else, as is pointed out, they would merely have had to have hands laid on them. Instead they are baptized again in water and the Spirit, then have hands laid on them. This also shows the differing forms of the Holy Spirit. Saint Thomas, in the quotation also given by Pete, states that Christ’s baptism was an intermediary one between a saving baptism and John’s baptism. This implies two things: 1. Jesus’ baptism was institutional in nature, since it was neither Sacramental (for him) nor for repentance of his own non-existent sin, and 2. His being the intermediary baptism implies the baptisms after his were, in fact, effectual, implying all baptisms in his name post-institution. Making arguments about the Holy Spirit :not having come yet" falls into the same trap I have already detailed, in which there are differing understandings of the Holy Spirit, as well as confusing temporal and eternal timelines, etc. Saying that “Jesus’ baptism applied to people prior to the Cross is not Sacramental” runs into a problem, since nowhere is it even remotely suggested that people baptized in the name of Jesus had to be “rebaptized,” and yet early witness says that His baptism was different than John’s. Taken with the fathers (keeping in mind that speculation in their time due to lack of Magisterial definition would be common), the only view that makes sense is that the Spirit in Christ’s baptism is a different form than the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, and yet is tied inexorably to the cross on a spiritual, if not temporal plane.

For what it’s worth, Scholars such as Meier and Dodd say that John 4:2 is a redaction, since it is already stated in 3:23 and 3:26 that Jesus himself baptizes as well. To be clear, their motives behind this is to establish that Jesus was himself actually a disciple of John at one point, and I have my own reservations about higher form/textual criticism. I don’t believe one needs to make that statement about John 4:2 for my case to be solid however. Another thing to keep in mind is that it states in John 4:1 that Jesus is “making and baptizing” more disciples than John. John’s ministry revolved around baptizing any disciples that were following him, and it appears that Jesus is contrasted as making and baptizing disciples. Meier has pointed out that this phrase “making disciples” is significant, in that it implies Jesus is baptizing them, in contrast to how John baptizes disciples. I will take this pertinent point from Meier without endorsing his comment about 4:2 being a redaction.

 

[brb3]

I am merely trying to challenge people in general to really think about what they say when they respond (and I am not saying you at all) “The Holy Spirit hadn’t come yet.” It is a statement I hear parroted that seems to betray a lack of deeper reflection on the nature of the workings of the Holy Spirit through the gospel, what it actually meant to say the Spirit hadn’t come yet, the differing forms of the Spirit, taking into account both temporal and eternal planes,

Mark 11:30-32 speaks to your question, wherein Christ addressed/challenged the Chief Priests regarding His authority …

“Was the BAPTISM OF JOHN from heaven or from men ?” … and they would not answer him for they said among themselves “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ Christ will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ [which Christ had already confirmed, by seeking out John, to receive His own Baptism from John] … but, if we say, ‘From men’?” … they feared the people, for ALL held that John was a real prophet [which necessitated John’s indwelling by H.S.].

Either way they answered … Christ was showning them that John’s authority resided with the Holy Spirit within him. Christ thereby confirmed John’s Baptism was desirable, & efficacious to all receiving.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Mark 11:30-32 speaks to your question, wherein Christ addressed/challenged the Chief Priests regarding His authority …

“Was the BAPTISM OF JOHN from heaven or from men ?” … and they would not answer him for they said among themselves “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ Christ will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ [which Christ had already confirmed, by seeking out John, to receive His own Baptism from John] … but, if we say, ‘From men’?” … they feared the people, for ALL held that John was a real prophet [which necessitated John’s indwelling by H.S.].

Either way they answered … Christ was showning them that John’s authority resided with the Holy Spirit within him. Christ thereby confirmed John’s Baptism was desirable, & efficacious to all receiving.

Your conclusion doesn’t follow from the text.You are making a gigantic eisegetical leap by saying that because Jesus confirms the authority of John, Jesus thereby confirms that John’s baptism is Sacramental. The most you can honestly say is that Jesus is confirming John’s authority, and thereby John’s baptism. This leaves the *nature *of John’s baptism up for debate, and this passage does nothing to help your point. You still haven’t dealt with the passages by the fathers and other Scripture displaying the marked difference between Jesus’ and John’s baptism. As the fathers pointed out, those under John’s baptism didn’t have to just have hands laid on them, they had to be *rebaptized *in water and the Spirit, then have hands laid on them. John’s baptism was non-effectual. It was a symbolic washing for people confessing their sins. I’d jokingly say it’s probably the only protestant baptism in the Bible.

Keep in mind why John’s baptism actually pointed the way to Christ. It was not because John baptized *only *with water, and then Jesus baptized *only *with the Holy Spirit. As I have shown, I believe it can be convincingly shown that Jesus did baptize, and at any rate those baptizing in his name were administering his baptism. The Jewish Mikveh was for ritual uncleanness and impurity. John was proposing something essentially theologically different: He was using a variation on Mikveh to symbolize washing away actual sin, as well as point toward the ending of the exile (note the location in the Jordan). This is a crucial theological difference, that would also point the way toward Christ, the one who *would *wash away, per Ezekiel. John pointed the way to Christ. This does not mean that his baptism would tie to the cross. Your reasoning of John’s baptism of water being completed by Christ’s in the Spirit essentialy makes John an instituter of a Sacrament, which Christ completes. Only Christ can institute Sacraments, only Christ’s baptism can tie to the cross, and this is the essential flaw in your reasoning.

To say that John’s was efficacious is to miss the point entirely and to contradict Scripture, Patristics, and Magisterium.

 

[Bookcat]

I think you misunderstand Pope Benedict’s meaning on this. Christ’s Baptism was also based on REPENTANCE. Indeed, repentance is always the prerequisite event [for adults receiving].

No I do not…Pope Benedict XVI (and the Church per se) is very clear here…John’s was a baptism of repentance and was VERY DIFFERENT than Christian Baptism (yes of course Christian Baptism also involves repentance for adults…but Johns was not a sacrament…it was a sign of repentance)

Christ took John’s Baptism [of Repentance and Belief in the Christ to Come] … and completes it by bringing forth the Holy Spirit he received from the Father, when he underwent John’s Baptism by water. Not that Christ needed repentance, but as he said … it was needed to FULFILL the scriptures.

John’s Baptism…remained his baptism. It did not become Christian Baptism…like those he baptized before Christ was Baptized were with one Baptism and then after Christ was Baptized it was another. This is NOT the understanding of the Catholic Church…John’s baptism was not Christian Baptism…what Jesus was to command later was Christian Baptism…

 

[brb3]

those under John’s baptism didn’t have to just have hands laid on them, they had to be *rebaptized *in water and the Spirit, then have hands laid on them. John’s baptism was non-effectual. It was a symbolic washing for people confessing their sins. I’d jokingly say it’s probably the only protestant baptism in the Bible.

Hello … a bad joke, yes, knowing that most Protestants receive Trinitarian baptisms, … indeed even Mormons do !

Now, lets go back earlier in Acts, to Chp. 18 … to look at Apollos’ & friends circumstances.

Acts 18:24-28 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, WELL VERSED IN THE SCRIPTURES. He had been INSTRUCTED IN THE WAY OF THE LORD; and being FERVENT IN SPIRIT, he spoke and TAUGHT ACCURATELY THE THINGS CONCERNING JESUS, though he knew only the baptism of John. … [Priscilla & Aquila give him some more Christian Traditions … which he accepts, and they RECOMMEND him to the other Christian brethren] When he arrived, HE GREATLY HELPED THOSE WHO THROUGH GRACE HAD BELIEVED, FOR HE POWERFULLY CONFUTED THE JEWS IN PUBLIC, SHOWING BY THE SCRIPTURES THAT CHRIST WAS JESUS.

Nathan W. … does this sound like a man [12 men] who had not been GRACED by God ? Men who had not had EFFICACIOUS effects from John’s Baptism & teachings on Christ ?

Acts 18 clearly teaches they had been renewed/redeemed by John’s Baptism … now fervent in teaching for Jesus as the Christ, and willing to accept the Catholic Traditions they learned of. Also willing to take on the FINAL steps recommended for them by Paul …and when receiving Trinitarian Baptisms & Confirmations, were able to prophesy and speak in tongues – just as Paul. :yup:

 

[brb3]

As I have shown, I believe it can be convincingly shown that Jesus did baptize,

To say that John’s was efficacious is to miss the point entirely and to contradict Scripture, Patristics, and Magisterium.

You have not CONVINCINGLY proven Jesus ever personally performed WATER baptisms. He may of … but, scripture [St. John the beloved of Christ] actually teaches he DID NOT ‘WATER’ BAPTIZE, … rather, his Apostles did !!!

Nevertheless, NO ONE but Christ can confer the Holy Spirit upon those water baptized by pastors/priests/laymen. So, Christ is intricately involved in EVERY water baptism, having instructed his ministers/deacons/etc. to perform the rite, …which He blesses with his H.S. & and makes Sacramental.

 

[brb3]

Bookcat:
Re: Bookcat’s Post #107 …

Some of our rather ‘important’ Catholic ECF’s disagree with your interpretation on role of John’s Baptism.

 

[Bookcat]

Re: Bookcat’s Post #107 …

Some of our rather ‘important’ Catholic ECF’s disagree with your interpretation on role of John’s Baptism.

It is not really my “interpretation”…it is how things are understood As Pope Benedict XVI etc explains things…John’s baptism was not a Sacrament. The Catholic Church does not hold that it was (rather that it was not).

Only Christian Baptism is a Sacrament (in the sense that the Church uses the word today…of course if one broadens the meaning…all sorts of things can be said to be “sacraments”…one could call lots of things in the Old Testament “sacraments” but not in the way one calls Baptism etc…)

The Baptism of John was not Christian Baptism.

His was a baptism of repentance. Pointing the way forward. It was of course very important…and work for God…preparing from the Messiah etc…(one could say more…)

The Baptism into Jesus Christ…into his death and resurrection…is a Sacrament.

Now can the Holy Spirit be active outside of Baptism? Yes of course. One example is Apollos…he was already seeking to follow Christ before he was baptized…for he did not know yet there was a Christian baptism…but when he found out he was baptized…

Same goes with Cornelius…the Holy Spirit came before Baptism…when Peter preached…

But this does not mean of course that either the baptism of John nor the preaching of Peter was the “efficacious” cause of the Holy Spirit coming.

The Holy Spirit can be at work long before Baptism…God is not bound to wait.

John’s baptism was not the cause per se of the Holy Spirit being active in the Apollo’s prior to baptism …as if it had made him a Christian…no. Nor did it make anyone a Christian. It was a baptism of repentance…pointing he way to the Christ…not a sacramental Baptism conferring the very life of Christ to the person. This was commanded by Christ after his death and resurrection…and with joy people received it (many who had been baptized we presume by John some years prior) thus knowing true life in the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth the Christ! Dying and rising with him in baptism…to walk in new life.

Yes the baptism of John was important…and it pointed onwards…just as John himself did…but it was not the Baptism into Christ --that was to come later.

 

[NotWorthy]

It is not really my “interpretation”…it is how things are understood As Pope Benedict XVI etc explains things…John’s baptism was not a Sacrament. The Catholic Church does not hold that it was (rather that it was not).

Only Christian Baptism is a Sacrament (in the sense that the Church uses the word today…of course if one broadens the meaning…all sorts of things can be said to be “sacraments”…one could call lots of things in the Old Testament “sacraments” but not in the way one calls Baptism etc…)

The Baptism of John was not Christian Baptism.

His was a baptism of repentance. Pointing the way forward. It was of course very important…and work for God…preparing from the Messiah etc…(one could say more…)

The Baptism into Jesus Christ…into his death and resurrection…is a Sacrament.

Now can the Holy Spirit be active outside of Baptism? Yes of course. One example is Apollos…he was already seeking to follow Christ before he was baptized…for he did not know yet there was a Christian baptism…but when he found out he was baptized…

Same goes with Cornelius…the Holy Spirit came before Baptism…when Peter preached…

But this does not mean of course that either the baptism of John nor the preaching of Peter was the “efficacious” cause of the Holy Spirit coming.

The Holy Spirit can be at work long before Baptism…God is not bound to wait.

John’s baptism was not the cause per se of the Holy Spirit being active in the Apollo’s prior to baptism …as if it had made him a Christian…no. Nor did it make anyone a Christian. It was a baptism of repentance…pointing he way to the Christ…not a sacramental Baptism conferring the very life of Christ to the person. This was commanded by Christ after his death and resurrection…and with joy people received it (many who had been baptized we presume by John some years prior) thus knowing true life in the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth the Christ! Dying and rising with him in baptism…to walk in new life.

Yes the baptism of John was important…and it pointed onwards…just as John himself did…but it was not the Baptism into Christ --that was to come later.

Very well said, Bookcat!

One simply has to ask oneself, if the Baptisms of John and even of the Apostles were efficacious, then why did Jesus have to die?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Very well said, Bookcat!

One simply has to ask oneself, if the Baptisms of John and even of the Apostles were efficacious, then why did Jesus have to die?

Because the Apostles’ baptism of the cross is a Sacrament tied directly to the cross outside of time. I would argue exactly the same as the Eucharist, allowing the Fathers to say that he held himself in his own hands. In fact, It is irrelevant when it happens on the temporal timeline, once Jesus institutes it. My two cents.

Here’s the key, Notworthy. They are not rebaptized after the Lord’s ascension. One could argue that they became effectual after the cross, but this runs into a conundrum. The Spirit is *never *shown as coming to complete a baptism later in time. The only way it is ever shown to come after baptism is through a laying on of hands, which is a separate aspect of the Holy Spirit rooted in Pentecost. The Fathers already cited show that those baptized only in water, but not the Spirit, had to be rebaptized not with the Spirit with the laying on of hands, but with water and the Spirit and laying on of hands. This is never shown to have happened to the apostles, which only makes sense if their baptism was effectual to begin with. It is not a contradiction to say so, because once instituted on the temporal timeline (which it was in the Jordan) it becomes effectual on an eternal timeline. It’s the exact same as the Grace of the cross applying to the OT, except the Sacrament is tied directly to it instead of prefiguring it. This is why the timing of the institution is more important than when the cross happened (on a temporal timeline), because the grace from the cross is eternal, but the institution doesn’t have to be to tap into that grace.

 

[NotWorthy]

Because the Apostles’ baptism of the cross is a Sacrament tied directly to the cross outside of time. I would argue exactly the same as the Eucharist, allowing the Fathers to say that he held himself in his own hands. In fact, It is irrelevant when it happens on the temporal timeline, once Jesus institutes it. My two cents.

Here’s the key, Notworthy. They are not rebaptized after the Lord’s ascension.

… and you know that how? I wasn’t aware they were baptized at all. To me, they were baptized when they received the Holy Spirit, which would be in John 20.

One could argue that they became effectual after the cross, but this runs into a conundrum. The Spirit is *never *shown as coming to complete a baptism later in time. The only way it is ever shown to come after baptism is through a laying on of hands, which is a separate aspect of the Holy Spirit rooted in Pentecost. The Fathers already cited show that those baptized only in water, but not the Spirit, had to be rebaptized not with the Spirit with the laying on of hands, but with water and the Spirit and laying on of hands. This is never shown to have happened to the apostles, which only makes sense if their baptism was effectual to begin with. It is not a contradiction to say so, because once instituted on the temporal timeline (which it was in the Jordan) it becomes effectual on an eternal timeline. It’s the exact same as the Grace of the cross applying to the OT, except the Sacrament is tied directly to it instead of prefiguring it. This is why the timing of the institution is more important than when the cross happened (on a temporal timeline), because the grace from the cross is eternal, but the institution doesn’t have to be to tap into that grace.

I wasn’t aware that the Grace of the Cross applied to the OT. I thought Jesus went into Hades (or Hell, or Sheol or whatever…) and preached to the prisoners. Those that accepted His message were freed. Those that didn’t descended into Hell.

Regarding the Eucharist, this was the institution of the priesthood, which is a charism. Baptism is an initiation into His Body. I don’t know if that’s relevant, but it doesn’t automatically draw parallels between the two events. In other words, simply because one could look forward, doesn’t necessarily mean the other can.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

.

… and you know that how? I wasn’t aware they were baptized at all. To me, they were baptized when they received the Holy Spirit, which would be in John 20.

 

[James224]

Hello NotWorthy & brb3,

I wanted to let you know that I was on the radio with Tim Staples today and asked him about this subject. You and brb3 are right and I was wrong. He said that Acts 19:5 is Water Baptism. He was familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas’ quote on the institution of Baptism at the Jordan (Summa, Part 3, Q66, Art 2, On the Contrary & I Answer That part) and said that it is problematic in some ways. He said that Acts 19:2, where it says " We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost", shows that they weren’t sacramentally Baptized. Interestingly, Tim said that in Acts 19:4, where it says John required the disciples to believe in Jesus, shows that the protestant view that all you have to do is believe, is false because they already believed but still had to be Baptized!! I brought up Cornelius in Acts 10 and said this story likewise proves the necessity of Baptism as in Acts 19:5 and Tim said Absolutely!!

 

[brb3]

One simply has to ask oneself, if the Baptisms of John and even of the Apostles were efficacious, then why did Jesus have to die?

N.W. … please don’t confuse the OPERATIVE WORD [efficacious] in your Thread with SACRAMENTAL !!!

As I earlier pointed out to you — in another thread, back in 2007, you stated the Baptism of John was not SACRAMENTAL. I have NOT ARGUED that point … as it isn’t our topic here. Rather, I’ve spoken to your posed thread question : Was it Efficacious ?

WHICH IT WAS ---- so stated Christ, in his questions to the Chief Priests … and likewise, many of ECF’s have pointed up the spiritual inception/graces/benefits/desirability/efficacy of John’s Baptism.

 

[brb3]

Here’s the key, Notworthy. They are not rebaptized after the Lord’s ascension. One could argue that they became effectual after the cross, but this runs into a conundrum. The Spirit is *never *shown as coming to complete a baptism later in time. The only way it is ever shown to come after baptism is through a laying on of hands, which is a separate aspect of the Holy Spirit rooted in Pentecost. The Fathers already cited show that those baptized only in water, but not the Spirit, had to be rebaptized not with the Spirit with the laying on of hands, but with water and the Spirit and laying on of hands. This is *never *shown to have happened to the apostles, which only makes sense if their baptism was effectual to begin with.

Good observations / conclusions … N.W.

We never find elsewhere in scripture [or Catholic Tradition] that all those Baptized by John needed RE-BAPTISMS … with the sole exception of Apollos & Friends, who had a truncated Baptism [w/o mention of Christ, only with mention of it being for repentance for sins]. This is why it took Paul by surprize, and he had to think it thru, and figure out what had gone wrong for these UNUSUAL 12 believers.

 

[brb3]

Hello NotWorthy & brb3,

I wanted to let you know that I was on the radio with Tim Staples today and asked him about this subject. You and brb3 are right and I was wrong. He said that Acts 19:5 is Water Baptism. He was familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas’ quote on the institution of Baptism at the Jordan (Summa, Part 3, Q66, Art 2, On the Contrary & I Answer That part) and said that it is problematic in some ways. He said that Acts 19:2, where it says " We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost", shows that they weren’t sacramentally Baptized. Interestingly, Tim said that in Acts 19:4, where it says John required the disciples to believe in Jesus, shows that the protestant view that all you have to do is believe, is false because they already believed but still had to be Baptized!! I brought up Cornelius in Acts 10 and said this story likewise proves the necessity of Baptism as in Acts 19:5 and Tim said Absolutely!!

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.

 

[Bookcat]

Oh and PS from the Council of Trent:

“If any one saith, that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ; let him be anathema.”

(now that does not mean your “anathema” here …and here is what it meant in the past jimmyakin.org/2005/10/anathema_sit.html)