Why don't we baptize Evangelical converts?

[TrueLight]

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.

Yes, the evangelical is choosing to be obedient to Christ. Furthermore, in some churches, baptism is seen as a fuller commitment of one’s life to Christ.

Do you think Christ doesn’t see that?

Nevertheless, the non-Catholic who gets validly baptized, gets baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So we are not a bunch of converts, Constantine, walking around, thinking we have valid baptisms because the Church says we do, while meanwhile we are headed for hell.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

By this logic, every Sacrament can be done every which way and we can just believe that Christ will supply whatever is lacking.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, the evangelical is choosing to be obedient to Christ. Furthermore, in some churches, baptism is seen as a fuller commitment of one’s life to Christ.

Do you think Christ doesn’t see that?

Nevertheless, the non-Catholic who gets validly baptized, gets baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So we are not a bunch of converts, Constantine, walking around, thinking we have valid baptisms because the Church says we do, while meanwhile we are headed for hell.

But in Scriptire it is obvious that every baptism is not the same. Christ’s baptism is not the same as John’s baptism, and Confirmation/Chrismation does not supply anything missing from John’s baptism, as evidenced by the “re”-baptism of those baptized by John but not by the followers of Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

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.

 

[TrueLight]

But in Scriptire it is obvious that every baptism is not the same. Christ’s baptism is not the same as John’s baptism, and Confirmation/Chrismation does not supply anything missing from John’s baptism, as evidenced by the “re”-baptism of those baptized by John but not by the followers of Christ.

You are the one who is always talking about legalism. Is this not legalism?

Matthew 28:19 says, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.

And that’s exactly what is done.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Their minister isn’t Catholic. Their intent isn’t to baptize as the Church does, because clearly their Sacramental theology on Baptism is completely the opposite of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches about Baptism. So how can their intent be the same?

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are the one who is always talking about legalism. Is this not legalism?

Matthew 28:19 says, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.

And that’s exactly what is done.

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.

 

[TrueLight]

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.

Right. In the same, way you can’t disregard some to prove your point.

And most importantly, you can’t disregard the Church.

Are you implying this is an innovation?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Right. In the same, way you can’t disregard some to prove your point.

And most importantly, you can’t disregard the Church.

Are you implying this is an innovation?

I am not disregarding the Church, that is why I raised this question. The Church always says that for a Sacrament to be valid it has to have valid matter, valid formula and valid intent by the right minister. I’m questionning the intent on this issue. We always talk about the formula, what about the other two. Obviously matter is not an issue, we don’t know anyone who baptizes with anything other than water. So intent, as the Church teaches. How can one who disagrees with Church teaching about the Sacrament have the same intent as the Church?

 

[TrueLight]

I am not disregarding the Church, that is why I raised this question. The Church always says that for a Sacrament to be valid it has to have valid matter, valid formula and valid intent by the right minister. I’m questionning the intent on this issue. We always talk about the formula, what about the other two. Obviously matter is not an issue, we don’t know anyone who baptizes with anything other than water. So intent, as the Church teaches. How can one who disagrees with Church teaching about the Sacrament have the same intent as the Church?

I would recommend that you read St Augustine against the heretics called Donatists, where he discusses the validity of their baptisms and whether they should be baptized again.

It can be found online here, if you have the patience for it: newadvent.org/fathers/14085.htm

Here is an excerpt from chapter 20.

How does a murderer cleanse and sanctify the water? How can darkness bless the oil? But if God is present in His sacraments to confirm His words by whomsoever the sacraments may be administered, then both the sacraments of God are everywhere valid, and evil men whom they profit not are everywhere perverse.

1. But what kind of argument is this, that “a heretic must be considered not to have baptism, because he has not the Church?” And it must be acknowledged that “when he is baptized, he is questioned about the Church.” Just as though the same question about the Church were not put in baptism to him who within the Church renounces the world in word and not in deed. As therefore his false answer does not prevent what he receives from being baptism, so also the false reply of the other about the holy Church does not prevent what he receives from being baptism; and as the former, if he afterwards fulfill with truth what he promised in falsehood, does not receive a second baptism, but only an amended life, so also in the case of the latter, if he come afterwards to the Church about which he gave a false answer to the question put to him, thinking that he had it when he had it not, the Church herself which he did not possess is given him, but what he had received is not repeated. But I cannot tell why it should be, that while God can “sanctify the oil” in answer to the words which proceed out of the mouth of a murderer, “He yet cannot sanctify it on the altar reared by a heretic,” unless it be that He who is not hindered by the false conversion of the heart of man within the Church is hindered by the false erection of some wood without from deigning to be present in His sacraments, though no falseness on the part of men can hinder Him. If, therefore, what is said in the gospel, that “God hears not sinners,” John 9:31 extends so far that the sacraments cannot be celebrated by a sinner, how then does He hear a murderer praying, either over the water of baptism, or over the oil, or over the eucharist, or over the heads of those on whom his hand is laid? All which things are nevertheless done, and are valid, even at the hands of murderers, that is, at the hands of those who hate their brethren, even within, in the Church itself. Since “no one can give what he does not possess himself,” how does a murderer give the Holy Spirit? And yet such an one even baptizes within the Church. It is God, therefore, that gives the Holy Spirit even when a man of this kind is baptizing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would recommend that you read St Augustine against the heretics called Donatists, where he discusses the validity of their baptisms and whether they should be baptized again.

It can be found online here, if you have the patience for it: newadvent.org/fathers/14085.htm

Here is an excerpt from chapter 20.

Note that many heretics still believed in baptism the way the Catholic Church does. The Reformationists do for one thing. Anglicans, for example, have perfectly valid baptism with the same theology on baptism as Catholics do. At least for the Tradtional Anglicans. Lutherans I believe do have the same theology on baptism as we do. So we can’t take one example and apply it to everyone else.

 

[SMHW]

Their minister isn’t Catholic. Their intent isn’t to baptize as the Church does, because clearly their Sacramental theology on Baptism is completely the opposite of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches about Baptism. So how can their intent be the same?

But Evangelicals DO baptize as the *Church *does.

A belief in what baptism does is not necessary for proper intent. Not for Evangelicals. Not for Catholics. |

You are reading more into “as the Church does” than the Church does.

Now if a priest just happened to spill some water on a person’s forehead while saying, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” but he had no intent to baptize that person, then he would not have baptized that person because he didn’t intend to do so. It wasn’t his intent to baptize.

 

[guanophore]

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

Yes, they do, to the extent that they are able to understand. Most evangelicals practice a Trinitarian baptism as an “ordinance”, meaning that they understand that Jesus ordained that this needs to be done. They don’t understand or accept the salvific nature of it. but they desire to be obedient to what Jesus commanded out of love for Him.

Even a Pagan or a Muslim can administer a valid baptism to someone.

Their minister isn’t Catholic. Their intent isn’t to baptize as the Church does, because clearly their Sacramental theology on Baptism is completely the opposite of what the Catholic Church believes and teaches about Baptism. So how can their intent be the same?

A Catholic minister is not required. Their beliefs about baptism are not “opposite”, they are just lacking in some of the Truth. Their intention is to be obedient to Christ.

I am not disregarding the Church, that is why I raised this question. The Church always says that for a Sacrament to be valid it has to have valid matter, valid formula and valid intent by the right minister. I’m questionning the intent on this issue. We always talk about the formula, what about the other two. Obviously matter is not an issue, we don’t know anyone who baptizes with anything other than water. So intent, as the Church teaches. How can one who disagrees with Church teaching about the Sacrament have the same intent as the Church?

The same way a non-Christian can perform a valid baptism. God reads the intentions of the heart, and the Church trusts in Him.

 

[guanophore]

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

Yes, they do, to the extent that they are able to understand. Most evangelicals practice a Trinitarian baptism as an “ordinance”, meaning that they understand that Jesus ordained that this needs to be done. They don’t understand or accept the salvific nature of it. but they desire to be obedient to what Jesus commanded out of love for Him.

Even a Pagan or a Muslim can administer a valid baptism to someone.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But Evangelicals DO baptize as the *Church *does.

A belief in what baptism does is not necessary for proper intent. Not for Evangelicals. Not for Catholics. |

You are reading more into “as the Church does” than the Church does.

Now if a priest just happened to spill some water on a person’s forehead while saying, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” but he had no intent to baptize that person, then he would not have baptized that person because he didn’t intend to do so. It wasn’t his intent to baptize.

Well, its the same thing really. If I slap you in the face 3 times and called it baptism, is that baptism? Not just because they called it baptism means it is baptism. It may look like baptism, but doesn’t mean it is.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, they do, to the extent that they are able to understand. Most evangelicals practice a Trinitarian baptism as an “ordinance”, meaning that they understand that Jesus ordained that this needs to be done. They don’t understand or accept the salvific nature of it. but they desire to be obedient to what Jesus commanded out of love for Him.

But again, if you don’t believe it is what it is, calling it the same thing doesn’t make it the same thing.

Even a Pagan or a Muslim can administer a valid baptism to someone.

I keep hearing this but really, how many Muslims and Pagans do we know that have ACTUALLY performed a baptism? Would they even be willing to do it for someone?

 

[poche]

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.

 

[Gorgias]

I keep hearing this but really, how many Muslims and Pagans do we know that have ACTUALLY performed a baptism? Would they even be willing to do it for someone?

But, that’s irrelevent, isn’t it?

You’re not asking the practical question in this thread of whether it’s ever happened, but the theoretical question of if its validity…!

 

[SonCatcher]

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.

The papacy has nothing to do with it. It is the full Magesterium (including the Eastern Catholic bishops), acting in their ordinary teaching authority, who have recognized the validity of most non-Catholic Christian baptisms. The authority claimed by other groups is irrelevant.

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. TrueLight’s citation of Augustine demonstrates soundly that the teaching is not new but goes back long before the troubles started between East and West.

Plenty of responders have given sound reasons, including converts from other Christian traditions. Objection for objection’s sake is hardly an adequate response.

 

[Evan]

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?’