Why don't we baptize Evangelical converts?

[ConstantineTG]

According to their beliefs, baptism isn’t necessary for salvation. According to what constitutes a valid Sacrament, there must be the correct intent. And the intention of the Church when she baptizes is to bring salvation to the person.

 

[Coemgenus_O]

By correct intention, the Church generally means in this context that they have a correct understanding of the formula used to baptize: “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Because Evangelicals (at least some of them) have a correct understanding of the Trinity, their baptisms are valid regardless of what they believe the effects of it are. On the other hand, Mormons use the same words but have an improper understanding, so their baptisms are invalid.

God Bless.

 

[SonCatcher]

According to their beliefs, baptism isn’t necessary for salvation. According to what constitutes a valid Sacrament, there must be the correct intent. And the intention of the Church when she baptizes is to bring salvation to the person.

I think because their intent is to do what Jesus intends. This, tacitly, is what the Church intends, even if they don’t understand it, themselves.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think because their intent is to do what Jesus intends. This, tacitly, is what the Church intends, even if they don’t understand it, themselves.

Well, it isn’t what Jesus intends. Baptism is necessary for salvation as seen in Scripture. I’ve recently read a “Statement of Faith” from an Evangelical institution clearly stating that baptism is not necessary for salvation. In fact, they explicitly deny that baptism is necessary for salvation. Even if they say the words, how is that valid? The baptismal formula is not “magic words” that when you say it things just happen.

 

[Evan]

Well, it isn’t what Jesus intends. Baptism is necessary for salvation as seen in Scripture. I’ve recently read a “Statement of Faith” from an Evangelical institution clearly stating that baptism is not necessary for salvation. In fact, they explicitly deny that baptism is necessary for salvation. Even if they say the words, how is that valid? The baptismal formula is not “magic words” that when you say it things just happen.

I think it might be said “they have a lack of understanding of the full implications of baptism.”

You would be arguing that the lack is great enough that their baptism is invalid.

The Church might argue that we all have a lack of understanding, so has to set the bar somewhere. It is lower that the ‘evangelical baptism’ but higher than the ‘Mormon baptism’.

I don’t understand how baptism saves, but I know that it does. How does it forgive sins? The recepient is not involved in that even an unconscience person can be baptized!!.

 

[SonCatcher]

Well, it isn’t what Jesus intends. Baptism is necessary for salvation as seen in Scripture. I’ve recently read a “Statement of Faith” from an Evangelical institution clearly stating that baptism is not necessary for salvation. In fact, they explicitly deny that baptism is necessary for salvation. Even if they say the words, how is that valid? The baptismal formula is not “magic words” that when you say it things just happen.

That’s a rather harsh assessment. They do say they baptize out of obedience to Jesus’ command and to follow His example. As has been noted already, they do use the correct formula and have correct Trinitarian belief (side ponderance: do we accept the baptisms of Modalists?).

Consider the instruction our savior gives in St. Mark’s gospel:

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 16:16[/BIBLEDRB]

The Catholic emphasis has always been the latter part of the instruction (“and is baptized”) while making allowance for catechumens (those who believe but are not yet baptized) to receive the grace of baptism in case they die before finally receiving the sacrament. This is know as the “baptism of desire” (or the “baptism of blood” for the case of a martyr).

The Evangelical, instead, places emphasis on the former part of the instruction (“he that believes”). As stated, above, they do generally believe that baptism is required for obedience and example. I think if you cornered them on it, the vast majority would agree that if a person refuses obedience or to follow Christ’s example, then the validity of his belief might rightly be questioned.

 

[mattdantuono]

I did not have the “correct intention” when I was confirmed in 8th grade (indeed, I didn’t have any intentions. I was just doing it because that is what everyone else did.). Nor did I gain a “correct intention” until I reverted to Catholicism when I was 25. However, that does not mean that I need to be re-confirmed. The grace of the sacrament is given by the very action of the sacrament. It is up to us when we “access” that grace.

 

[Richca]

I think it might be said “they have a lack of understanding of the full implications of baptism.”

You would be arguing that the lack is great enough that their baptism is invalid.

The Church might argue that we all have a lack of understanding, so has to set the bar somewhere. It is lower that the ‘evangelical baptism’ but higher than the ‘Mormon baptism’.

I don’t understand how baptism saves, but I know that it does. How does it forgive sins? The recepient is not involved in that even an unconscience person can be baptized!!.

Baptism forgives sins through the atonement made by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. In the case of an adult baptism, a person would not receive the forgiveness of their sins if they were not repentent of them. Infants have original sin taken away as they are not guilty of any personal sins.

 

[AbideWithMe]

That’s a rather harsh assessment. They do say they baptize out of obedience to Jesus’ command and to follow His example. As has been noted already, they do use the correct formula and have correct Trinitarian belief (side ponderance: do we accept the baptisms of Modalists?).

…

The Evangelical, instead, places emphasis on the former part of the instruction (“he that believes”). As stated, above, they do generally believe that baptism is required for obedience and example. I think if you cornered them on it, the vast majority would agree that if a person refuses obedience or to follow Christ’s example, then the validity of his belief might rightly be questioned.

Yes.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I did not have the “correct intention” when I was confirmed in 8th grade (indeed, I didn’t have any intentions. I was just doing it because that is what everyone else did.). Nor did I gain a “correct intention” until I reverted to Catholicism when I was 25. However, that does not mean that I need to be re-confirmed. The grace of the sacrament is given by the very action of the sacrament. It is up to us when we “access” that grace.

The one who gave you Confirmation had the right intention though, we hope

But in the Evangelical’s case, no one has the intention to baptize according to what baptism is by Church tradition and scripture.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think it might be said “they have a lack of understanding of the full implications of baptism.”

You would be arguing that the lack is great enough that their baptism is invalid.

The Church might argue that we all have a lack of understanding, so has to set the bar somewhere. It is lower that the ‘evangelical baptism’ but higher than the ‘Mormon baptism’.

I don’t understand how baptism saves, but I know that it does. How does it forgive sins? The recepient is not involved in that even an unconscience person can be baptized!!.

It is not an intellectual understanding about how baptism works. All Sacraments are mysteries (thus the name) but we still have to know and believe what they are there for. We don’t know how confession exactly removes sin from your soul, we just know it does. But if you don’t believe that confession removes sin from your soul, or if a priest doesn’t believe that he can actually absolve your sins, what then?

Why is there levels of this? You either are baptized or you’re not. There is no such thing as “more baptized” or “partially baptized”. If it is invalid, then it is the same as Mormon baptism.

 

[Evan]

It is not an intellectual understanding about how baptism works. All Sacraments are mysteries (thus the name) but we still have to know and believe what they are there for. We don’t know how confession exactly removes sin from your soul, we just know it does. But if you don’t believe that confession removes sin from your soul, or if a priest doesn’t believe that he can actually absolve your sins, what then?

Why is there levels of this? You either are baptized or you’re not. There is no such thing as “more baptized” or “partially baptized”. If it is invalid, then it is the same as Mormon baptism.

Correct. So the Mormon baptism uses water, uses the proper words but the intention is inadequate.

The Church says the intention in an Evangelicals baptism is adequate so that a true sacrament occurs and the associated graces are received.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

According to their beliefs, baptism isn’t necessary for salvation. According to what constitutes a valid Sacrament, there must be the correct intent. And the intention of the Church when she baptizes is to bring salvation to the person.

How about this.

Because the Church says that their baptism is valid.

Must we actually know all the minutiae for everything the Church says?

Isn’t that scholasticism?

I know that the argument from authority is the weakest one but heck, sometimes it works for me.

 

[SMHW]

Correct. So the Mormon baptism uses water, uses the proper words but the intention is inadequate.

The Church says the intention in an Evangelicals baptism is adequate so that a true sacrament occurs and the associated graces are received.

I think you could argue that Mormons do not use the correct form since they are using words (the names of the persons of the trinity) to mean something other than what Catholics, mainline Protestants, and most Evangelicals mean.

Pretty much everyone agrees that “to baptize” means to perform a physical act of ceremonial washing using water in accordance with the instructions of Jesus. The problems with correct form come from the choice of words regarding in whose name(s) the baptism is to be done and in who the person(s) named is/are.

 

[Coemgenus_O]

I think you could argue that Mormons do not use the correct form since they are using words (the names of the persons of the trinity) to mean something other than what Catholics, mainline Protestants, and most Evangelicals mean.

Yes. Baptism needs two things: 1) water, 2) to be done in the name of the Trinity. Since Mormons don’t actually believe in the Trinity (rather, it’s something else that they call by the same name) it’s invalid. And that’s why the Church says it’s invalid- because it is. Not because they have a special dislike for Mormons.

 

[SMHW]

According to their beliefs, baptism isn’t necessary for salvation. According to what constitutes a valid Sacrament, there must be the correct intent. And the intention of the Church when she baptizes is to bring salvation to the person.

The intent of the Catholic minister of baptism is to baptize (as the Church does.) Period. While the ultimate intent of the Catholic Church may be to bring salvation (through baptism) to the person that is not the specific intent needed for the validity of the sacrament.

So if we were to diagram a sentence where “intent” was the subject and “is” the verb, then “to baptize” would be the predicate nominative.

 

[twf]

They intend to baptize according to the command of Christ, so Christ himself, acting through the sacrament, supplies what was lacking in the minister’s intent. Regardless, once received into the Church via confirmation, any graces that were lacking are supplied and perfected.

 

[Evan]

Yes. Baptism needs two things: 1) water, 2) to be done in the name of the Trinity. Since Mormons don’t actually believe in the Trinity (rather, it’s something else that they call by the same name) it’s invalid. And that’s why the Church says it’s invalid- because it is. Not because they have a special dislike for Mormons.

Correct. So they lack the belief in the trinity. Evangelicals lack the belief in effectiveness of baptism (hence do not see it as a Sacrament). But one is inadequate to effect the Sacrament and one is adequate. So it falls under the umbrella authority of “Whatever you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven”.

 

[Gorgias]

How about this.

Because the Church says that their baptism is valid.

LOL!

:clapping: This! FTW…!

 

[Gorgias]

But in the Evangelical’s case, no one has the intention to baptize according to what baptism is by Church tradition and scripture.

Baptism can be done by anyone in an emergency. So, let’s suppose that an atheist knows you wish to be baptized, and in danger of death, he baptizes you. Clearly, this atheist has no ‘intent’ that you are objectively saved by virtue of baptism. However, he does intend to do what your Church intends: to baptize with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Voila! Valid baptism!

Sooo… how is it that the theological opinions of the baptizer equate to ‘intent’? Hmm…