Why don't we baptize Evangelical converts?

[ConstantineTG]

Different protestant religions have different concepts of what is Baptism. However if they intend what the Catholic Churh does and they do what the Catholic church does then that baptism is valid.

Again, the question is, how can they intend to do as the Catholic Church does when they don’t even believe in the same thing as the Catholic Church does about Baptism? Let me take one entry in the CCC:

1227 According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ’s death, is buried with him, and rises with him:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.29

The baptized have "put on Christ."Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.

The highlights, they believe absolutely nothing of those. I’m sure you can look at other entries in the CCC about baptism and say that Evangelicals don’t believe those as well. So again, how can they “do as the Catholic Church does” when they don’t even believe these things the Catholic Church does when she baptizes?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Perhaps the question could be approached from another direction:

Instead of ‘Here are the teachings on sacramental validity, how that that match up with evangelical baptism?’

Ask ‘The Church accepts evangelical baptism, how can we understand the limits of sacramental validity with this knowledge?’

Currently the way I see it is that form and matter is only what is considered, and that intent is highly subject to interpretation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are correct that “because the Church said so” is inadequate as a reason, but it should be adequate demonstration that the finding is correct.

I disagree. Should we blindly follow our bishops because they are our bishops? What if they become heretics? Many bishops have become heretics, even Popes. In this case, “the Church says so” leads us down the wrong path.

 

[Evan]

Again, the question is, how can they intend to do as the Catholic Church does when they don’t even believe in the same thing as the Catholic Church does about Baptism? Let me take one entry in the CCC:

The highlights, they believe absolutely nothing of those. I’m sure you can look at other entries in the CCC about baptism and say that Evangelicals don’t believe those as well. So again, how can they “do as the Catholic Church does” when they don’t even believe these things the Catholic Church does when she baptizes?

It is that they must believe what the Church believes or intent what the Church intends. What does the Church intend with baptism. It intends that we become a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. Do evangelicals see baptism as obeying the command of Christ? Thus ‘putting on’ Christ = becoming a member.

 

[SonCatcher]

I disagree. Should we blindly follow our bishops because they are our bishops? What if they become heretics? Many bishops have become heretics, even Popes. In this case, “the Church says so” leads us down the wrong path.

You are distorting the context of my statement. I was not advocating that one should follow blindly but to recognize that the one voice with which our bishops who are in communion with each other speak is that of the Holy Spirit working through them. Therefore, we can open our eyes to what they have to say.

The reasoning they present for their finding (which, I’m sure, can be found in some document or other) is acceptable because it comes from the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus promised would instruct them in all things.

If there is a lone heretical or dissenting voice among the bishops, it is to be discounted.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is that they must believe what the Church believes or intent what the Church intends. What does the Church intend with baptism. It intends that we become a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. Do evangelicals see baptism as obeying the command of Christ? Thus ‘putting on’ Christ = becoming a member.

No they don’t. They believe that you must “accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior”. Baptism does not do that for them. To them baptism is just a ceremony, it has no effect. They do it only because Jesus said do it, but for no other reason.

 

[Evan]

No they don’t. They believe that you must “accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior”. Baptism does not do that for them. To them baptism is just a ceremony, it has no effect. They do it only because Jesus said do it, but for no other reason.

Doing something because Jesus said to do it, is the same reason we do it. We understand why Jesus said to do it more fully, but we have derived our understanding from reflection on Jesus’ command.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Doing something because Jesus said to do it, is the same reason we do it. We understand why Jesus said to do it more fully, but we have derived our understanding from reflection on Jesus’ command.

I disagree. St. Paul rejected Johannine baptism (the baptism of St. John the Baptist). Clearly just having a type of baptism performed is not the same as the baptism taught by Christ. If your belief about baptism is different from baptism as taught by Christ, then it is not the same baptism.

 

[Evan]

I disagree. St. Paul rejected Johannine baptism (the baptism of St. John the Baptist). Clearly just having a type of baptism performed is not the same as the baptism taught by Christ. If your belief about baptism is different from baptism as taught by Christ, then it is not the same baptism.

Right you are. John’s was not done at Jesus command. Paul’s understanding of baptism came from reflection on Jesus command. We derive our understanding by looking at the history of how it was understood by Paul, Peter, and the ECF.

We understand that Jesus has ‘words of eternal life’ so when He speaks, his command is effective in addition to being informative. When He commands us to use his words ('in the name… ) the effect He desired, occurs. And using his words is part of his command. So the evangelical is effecting the sacrament through the use of the words. The Church has given the authority to use the effect of these words to all people (via bind and loose authority).

 

[SonCatcher]

I disagree. St. Paul rejected Johannine baptism (the baptism of St. John the Baptist). Clearly just having a type of baptism performed is not the same as the baptism taught by Christ. If your belief about baptism is different from baptism as taught by Christ, then it is not the same baptism.

Rightly did he do so. The Johannine baptism was fundamentally different. In it, someone would confess their sins and wash themselves. It was not for entrance into a community of believers and did not remove Original Sin. If, at some later time, the same person committed sin again, he would have to repeat the process under the Johannine system. It was really more akin to our Sacrament of Reconciliation than anything else.

 

[mercytruth]

Adult baptism cleanses a repentant sinner from sin after, or as one becomes a disciple. At the same time, one is baptized into the burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and becomes a child of God. This is the historical understanding of baptism. Simon Magus came along and was baptized, but was not cleansed from a ‘root of bitterness’. This root of bitterness within Simon Magus later manifested itself as a demonic spirit of gnosticism, where he himself claimed to be the Christ.

If an adult evangelical Christian has been baptized, but has not received the prayer of exorcism, (as the formal Catholic baptism includes), how do we know whether or not such an Evangelical who desires to become a member of the Catholic church is free from demonic spirits?

Have you ever watched the Billy Graham Crusade?, (without taking anything away from Billy Graham), all that is required for a sinner to be forgiven of one’s sins is to come to the front and say the sinner’s prayer of repentance and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.
There is no catechumen teaching, no time of discernment, no preparation, no prayers of exorcism.

It is my conviction from personal experience, and from being around Protestants and Catholics, that there is a lot of spiritual warfare going on in their lives because there was not proper discernment, teaching, preparation, and prayers of exorcism before hands were laid upon the ‘believer’ to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Many Protestant adult baptisms do not include prayers of exorcism, therefore their baptisms are not as the Catholic Church intends. It is possible within this scenario, that a ‘pretender’ under demonic influence could enter the Catholic church. Even as Jesus Christ has taught us about the devil sowing tares among the wheat.

God be merciful to us sinners

micah

 

[ConstantineTG]

Right you are. John’s was not done at Jesus command. Paul’s understanding of baptism came from reflection on Jesus command. We derive our understanding by looking at the history of how it was understood by Paul, Peter, and the ECF.

We understand that Jesus has ‘words of eternal life’ so when He speaks, his command is effective in addition to being informative. When He commands us to use his words ('in the name… ) the effect He desired, occurs. And using his words is part of his command. So the evangelical is effecting the sacrament through the use of the words. The Church has given the authority to use the effect of these words to all people (via bind and loose authority).

Please read Acts 19 first to understand the context of why the Johannine Baptism was rejected. The rejection was not because it was not done under the context of a comman from Christ, but rather what the nature of the baptism was. John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. Clearly the subject is the intent of the baptism. If the baptism performed is intended for anything other than the intention of the baptism unto Christ, then it is an invalid baptism. Or a different baptism.

Also in Acts 19 it says they were baptized “in the Name of Christ”. Not the Trinitarian Formula. But we need to understand what “in the name of…” means, rather than seeing it as just a formula. For something done “in the name of…” someone means that it is done not only because of that person, but done as if that person himself did it. That includes the full intention of that person. For us to baptize in the name of Christ, we need to use the Trinitarian Formula, the water, and the intention of Christ himself. That is, to give us life by being born again, for us to receive the Holy Spirit, for us to be brought into salvation. To be baptized in the Name of Christ is to include everything taught about baptism because that is the entire intention and reason of baptism as taught by Christ himself to his apostles.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The problem is this is a “he says, she says” kind of thing. Remember that many sects and cults function the same way, their leader says so, therefore it must be true. And don’t forget, before you and someone says “but our leader (the Pope) is the successor of St. Peter.” All these sects and cults has their own claim to authority as well. Think Joseph Smith.

If we look back into Church history we see that “because the Church said so” isn’t used as an argument in combating heresy or answering crucial theological questions.

I am not so sure on this. The Church worked out many of the early heresies with Councils. The ultimate “we say so” is a Conciliar statement.

Anyways, who has the authority to question the Church when it has ruled?

I am satisfied with this as I know there are those with a greater theological understanding and education working within the Church than or any other lay person will ever have.

For me I guess this falls under my obedience to the Church and my trust that the Church and God will not let me down.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

One line of scripture cannot justify anything if not interpreted in the light of tradition of the Church. Obviously there is more to is as evidenced by all the other passages on Baptism.

Do you believe that a person can do something that is right for the wrong reasons?

If so then why not fit that belief with baptism. They do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation but they follow the command of Christ to baptize and we know that Christ believes that baptism is necessary for salvation.

So Christ’s perfect belief trumps their flawed belief.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you believe that a person can do something that is right for the wrong reasons?

If so then why not fit that belief with baptism. They do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation but they follow the command of Christ to baptize and we know that Christ believes that baptism is necessary for salvation.

So Christ’s perfect belief trumps their flawed belief.

But again, how is this reconciled with St. Paul’s rejection of Johannine baptism? Remember these people he met were already practicing Christians. They believe in Jesus and follow his teaching, yet needed to be baptized properly.

 

[Evan]

But again, how is this reconciled with St. Paul’s rejection of Johannine baptism? Remember these people he met were already practicing Christians. They believe in Jesus and follow his teaching, yet needed to be baptized properly.

There is no indication that they were practicing Christians, they were followers of John. He baptized as did many others, but not by Jesus command and not with the authority of Jesus.

 

[CB_Catholic]

The Church has the power to bind and loose. It has an infallible teaching Magesterium, guided by the Holy Spirit. This is basic Catholicism. These things have been pondered and worked out over 2000 years by minds far more learned and astute than anyone here, and by infallible Church councils, all guided by the Paraclete. I suggest that if one is disagreeing this much, one needs to humbly put on the mind of the Church, get busy and study to find out where they are in error. Because the Church is not in error, they are.

And that is the crux of the matter. Questioning for understanding is one thing. Persistant denial of a teaching or doctrine is another. One needs to be careful one’s doubt does not cross over to become the other.

 

[SonCatcher]

But again, how is this reconciled with St. Paul’s rejection of Johannine baptism? Remember these people he met were already practicing Christians. They believe in Jesus and follow his teaching, yet needed to be baptized properly.

Of John’s followers recorded in Acts, only Apollos is recorded as having some belief in Jesus, yet he is recorded as having been instructed more fully (curiously, he is not recorded as having been baptized, but I am sure after the events of the following chapter that would not have been long delayed). It is apparent that it wasn’t only a proper baptism that was lacking for him.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I disagree. Should we blindly follow our bishops because they are our bishops? What if they become heretics? Many bishops have become heretics, even Popes. In this case, “the Church says so” leads us down the wrong path.

You are bound by obedience to follow your bishop in matters of faith and morals.

If a bishop tries to lead you into sin then you resist but . . .

Laity have no authority to determine heresy, only the Church can do so.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But again, how is this reconciled with St. Paul’s rejection of Johannine baptism? Remember these people he met were already practicing Christians. They believe in Jesus and follow his teaching, yet needed to be baptized properly.

I leave this to those within the Church who have the authority to decide.

I find no need to second guess their every action.