Why don't we baptize Evangelical converts?

[ConstantineTG]

there are lots who misunderstand what Baptism/Christening actually is

Once been baptised/Christened then there is no need to be done so again though different denominations will basically tell the person they do need to be done again as they see it as entry to the Church rather than Entry in the Lords’ Family? (Whichever denomination a person may have entered into the Lords’ Family from, if they change denominations it shouldn’t matter because they have already Entered into the Lords’ Family. But the Church of different denominations don’t always recognise this. Some do and some don’t.

There is no misunderstanding here. The issue is if their baptism is even valid at all, given their faulty theology on baptism.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There is no misunderstanding here. The issue is if their baptism is even valid at all, given their faulty theology on baptism.

Actually no.

The Church has spoken. There is no issue whether or not their baptisms are valid or not as the Church says that they are.

It is all well and good to play the theological speculation game but when that game goes into the territory of saying that the Church is in error then it is you who have gotten it wrong.

This is probably something that should be taken up with your spiritual director and if necessary your bishop as this is not a place to solve what the Church has already dealt with.

I will pray for you, please pray for me.

 

[TrueLight]

I qualified as one in the past and what he says is true. The apostles creed is kept by them, at least those I knew, and they printed it with a small c for catholic as it means universal.

Which actually is the meaning for Catholics as well when we pray it in the Creed.

Maybe we’re using the term evangelical differently or maybe there are different types, but no way would any evangelical I know say anything about the “communion of saints” because the belief is there is no communion.

As for the creed, as a Baptist and a Pentecostal (in my childhood and teens) I vaguely remember reading a creed (at least in the Baptist church) once a year. I don’t have any memory of the word “catholic” being used, but I may be wrong. I would have to look that up.

Edited: I just read multiple places that Baptists tend to have aversion to creeds so I have no idea what type of statement of faith I read, LOL.

 

[TrueLight]

Carolyn,

What makes a difference for myself with regard to the issue of **one Lord, one faith, one baptism **is to be able to define the one faith in a manner in which we can acknowledge the one baptism of those who are entering the Catholic Church as former Protestants.

Rather than asking the ‘modern day’ Evangelicals whether they confess the Apostle’s Creed, maybe one could ask them statement by statement whether this was their faith as practicing Evangelicals who were baptized as adults. (Infant baptisms seem to fall into another category.)

In other words, those Evangelicals who had been baptized with water and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins.

One could ask such Evangelicals whether they had believed the following:

God the Father Almighty is the Creator of heaven and earth.

Jesus Christ is His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary.

Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.

That he descended into sheol, and on the third day rose from the dead.

That he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father, from whence he shall come again to judge.

Do they believe In the Holy Spirit, that the church is universal and not national, in the gathering together as the body of Christ for worship and instruction, in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body’ and eternal life.

It would seem to me if such candidates for entering the Catholic church could answer these questions in the affirmative, then they had a valid baptism, and would not need to be baptized again. Or if they could answer most of these questions in the affirmative, maybe they would be candidates for a conditional baptism. As it stands now, correct matter and form do not measure up to the more complete standards that Bishop Cyprian and the African synod of bishops were so adamant about, and the standards that the Vatican ruled in 2001 with regard to Mormon baptisms.

God’s peace be with you

micah

In that case, I believe most would be willing to say that.

I was 17 when I was baptized. I know that I had to attend Baptism preparation classes. Those classes covered everything as stated above.

 

[TrueLight]

So some evangelicals do profess the creeds and do use the word “catholic” so there can be no blanket statement, as was made, that evangelicals do not use this term.

Okay so I was wrong.

In the churches I attended growing up, some of the traditional evangelical denominations being referenced here were considered to be different from the baptists and pentecostals. So whenever I think of evangelical, I think of baptists and pentecostals. Mea Culpa.

 

[mercytruth]

In that case, I believe most would be willing to say that.

I was 17 when I was baptized. I know that I had to attend Baptism preparation classes. Those classes covered everything as stated above.

That would make my heart glad. Sometimes one reads about polls taken among Protestants and Catholics regarding such teachings as the Virgin birth, and the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the results were disappointing.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Maybe we’re using the term evangelical differently or maybe there are different types, but no way would any evangelical I know say anything about the “communion of saints” because the belief is there is no communion.

Actually they do practice communion. Most of them have some sort of Lord’s Supper where they receive bread and wine (or grape juice), mostly once a month. We even did this in the Pentacostal Church I attended for a time.

They would say they believe in the “communion” of saints as that “communion” is not referencing the Eucharist.

 

[SecretaryMonday]

Maybe we’re using the term evangelical differently or maybe there are different types, but no way would any evangelical I know say anything about the “communion of saints” because the belief is there is no communion.

As for the creed, as a Baptist and a Pentecostal (in my childhood and teens) I vaguely remember reading a creed (at least in the Baptist church) once a year. I don’t have any memory of the word “catholic” being used, but I may be wrong. I would have to look that up.

Edited: I just read multiple places that Baptists tend to have aversion to creeds so I have no idea what type of statement of faith I read, LOL.

I have an Evangelical background also (Reformed Baptist - more Reformed than Baptist), and we confessed the Apostle’s creed at least a few times a year, including the “communion of saints” AND the “I believe…the holy catholic church”.

For us, “Communion of saints” meant that all Christians all over the world are in spiritual communion with one another as a part of Christ’s one body regardless of denomination, language, etc. (“saints” meaning all Christians, obviously not the post-mortem canonized kind). By “holy catholic church”, we meant about the same thing: all Christians universally are Christ’s one church. (Kind of redundant, now that I look back on it…)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have an Evangelical background also (Reformed Baptist - more Reformed than Baptist), and we confessed the Apostle’s creed at least a few times a year, including the “communion of saints” AND the “I believe…the holy catholic church”.

For us, “Communion of saints” meant that all Christians all over the world are in spiritual communion with one another as a part of Christ’s one body regardless of denomination, language, etc. (“saints” meaning all Christians, obviously not the post-mortem canonized kind). By “holy catholic church”, we meant about the same thing: all Christians universally are Christ’s one church. (Kind of redundant, now that I look back on it…)

My understanding of it was that “communion of saints” covers all the saints (yes every Christian is a saint (lower case s)) that have passed one. That even though they are no longer here with us on earth we still share a communion with them.

The “holy catholic church” covers those saints still living.

 

[TrueLight]

Actually they do practice communion. Most of them have some sort of Lord’s Supper where they receive bread and wine (or grape juice), mostly once a month. We even did this in the Pentacostal Church I attended for a time.

They would say they believe in the “communion” of saints as that “communion” is not referencing the Eucharist.

But the Catholic definition includes living and dead, and I’m going to be careful and say in my circle of Christians that I’ve been involved with and worked with, including a number of “born again” type of churches including non-denominational Mega Churches like the Brooklyn Tabernacle, and Times Square church, which are pretty charismatic, , they would definitely not be fine with any implication of some kind of union with dead people.

And if they said any creed at all, I doubt it would include the term “catholic”.

 

[TrueLight]

I have an Evangelical background also (Reformed Baptist - more Reformed than Baptist), and we confessed the Apostle’s creed at least a few times a year, including the “communion of saints” AND the “I believe…the holy catholic church”.

For us, “Communion of saints” meant that all Christians all over the world are in spiritual communion with one another as a part of Christ’s one body regardless of denomination, language, etc. (“saints” meaning all Christians, obviously not the post-mortem canonized kind). By “holy catholic church”, we meant about the same thing: all Christians universally are Christ’s one church. (Kind of redundant, now that I look back on it…)

I’m not sure I know what a reformed baptist is. I understand there are different types of baptists and I’m not even sure which one my church belonged to.

This is all very interesting though.

 

[TrueLight]

That would make my heart glad. Sometimes one reads about polls taken among Protestants and Catholics regarding such teachings as the Virgin birth, and the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the results were disappointing.

God’s peace be with you

micah

I’m glad you’re pleased.

However, in my experience, a lot of Protestants believe most of the tenets of the Apostle’s creed. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe in the Virgin birth. Do they go into details like did our Lady experience labor pains or did she remain unchanged physically? Probably not. Do they believe she remained a Virgin? Probably not. But most definitely believe that Mary had never “known” anyone when she had Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

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.

You are right, of course, which is why Holy Mother Church has specific criteria, and discerns whether they have been met. In the case of evangelical converts, the Church has decided these baptisms are done as the Church requires, and are therefore valid.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is true, of course. However, cults and sects are not protected by the HS through the gift of infallibility. When the church “says” something in situations like this, what is said on earth is bound in heaven. He who hears the Church hears Christ. The Head of the Church is Christ, so when our leader says “so” then indeed, 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.

You hit that nail on the head. You are right on that all these sects and cults have their own claim to authority. But unlike all of them, the Church did not make her own claim to authority based upon a human. Rather, she was gifted it by God Himself.

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.

On the contrary, that is the MAIN arguement that is used! When you read the early apologetic works, that appeal is found throughout them, as well as the findings of the early councils, especially with all controversies that occurred before the canon was closed in 382.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Actually there are probably a majority of evangelicals that agree with the first one, because that is how they understand the scripture.

Most evangelicals are not well catechized on the scriptures pertaining to baptism, but neither do infants, and we do not consider their baptism invalid because they don’t understand what is happening.

They choose to be baptized because Christ commanded it, and they want to be obedient to His command. That is the intent that the Church recognizes.

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

Well, I would argue that all three are considered, and your point is ture that what various persons believe about baptism is highly subject to interpretation. However, we choose to agree with the interpretation of the Church, that when those persons doing baptism do so in order to comply with Jesus’ commandment, and intend what they believe He intended, then their actions demonstrate that they wish to be unified with their Head, who is Christ. Most modern American evangelicals have been taught that baptism is intended to be a public display of their faith and unity with Christ and the Church He founded.

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, we should not blindly follow our bishops, but seek to know and practice our faith in unity with them. If they become heretics, we will know because we have studied to show ourselves approved unto God in our faith.

It is important in such cases to recognize that the Church is more than the bishops and people under them. The Church is also the saints who have gone on before, and those who are joined to Christ that may not appear so visibly in this life.

Most importantly, the Church is ensouled by the Holy Spirit, and has Jesus as her Head. It is these infallible elements of the Church that enable us to trust ourselves to her care, even though there may be faithless shepherds or wolves in sheeps clothing.

 

[guanophore]

No they don’t.

They do! If you ask an evangelical if they believe that verse of scripture that says “as many of you have been baptized have put on Christ” they will certainly affirm this. It is true that they think of it symbolically, but they do believe that a person who professes faith in Christ is expected to “put on Christ” in word and deed. As a matter of fact, there are many evangelicals that strive daily to live out their faith in Christ in such a way that would put the majority of cafeteria Catholics to utter shame.

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.

It is true that they believe personal acceptance of Jesus as saviour is necessary for salvation. I think it is also true when you say “baptism does not do that for them”. This is the main reason evangelicals reject infant baptism in favor of "believers baptism’. They believe it is necessary to make a profession of faith THEN be baptized.

Though they may not be aware of the full effects of baptism, their intent is to follow the commandment of Jesus because they believe they must be obedient to Him, having professed faith in Him.

This is certainly more than any infant can do!

 

[guanophore]

I disagree. St. Paul rejected Johannine baptism (the baptism of St. John the Baptist).

He did nothing of the kind! The fact that the Christian baptism replaced OT ablutions is not “rejection”. When Jesus joined the Holy Spirit to the waters of Baptism, they were transformed in meaning and function. John’s baptism came from God, just as did all the commandments given under the Old Testament. They need not be “rejected”.

Clearly just having a type of baptism performed is not the same as the baptism taught by Christ.

True.

If your belief about baptism is different from baptism as taught by Christ, then it is not the same baptism.

This is a false statement. The Church has ordained, by the power of the HS who preserves her infallibly from error, that if certain conditions are met, then a valid baptism has occurrred. This applies even if the person administering baptism has NO beliefs about it.

Right you are. John’s was not done at Jesus command.

This seems to imply that John’s baptism did not come from God, which is not the case.

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.

I am sure that Paul’s reflection on the teachings of Jesus about Baptism did influence his understanding of it, but prior to that, Paul accepted baptism because it came through the authority of the Church founded by Christ. When he was baptized he did not have that understanding because he was a neophyte. He subjected himself to the catechism so that he could learn and understand.

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.

Nowhere in that passage is it even implied that John’s baptism was to be “rejected” in any way. The fact is that they did not KNOW that there was another baptism. Nevertheless, they were called DISCIPLES because they were followers of the Teaching of Christ.

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.

There is no distinction between the trinitarian formula and “in the name of Jesus”. The trinitarian formula is the one He commanded be used. This is what evangelicals use. That is why it is considered valid.

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.

Basically what you seem to be saying is that you have rejected the authorative teaching of the Church founded by Christ in this matter and are substituting your own criteria that you think make more sense.

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.

This certainly holds true for those who are baptized into the Catholic Church. Those that are not are still lacking much catechism in this area.

So I have a question for you. When the Apostles baptized before Jesus was crucified, since all they knew was John’s baptism themselves, and the HS had not yet been given to the Church, do you think they used a Trinitarian formula?

 

[CB_Catholic]

I have an Evangelical background also (Reformed Baptist - more Reformed than Baptist), and we confessed the Apostle’s creed at least a few times a year, including the “communion of saints” AND the “I believe…the holy catholic church”.

For us, “Communion of saints” meant that all Christians all over the world are in spiritual communion with one another as a part of Christ’s one body regardless of denomination, language, etc. (“saints” meaning all Christians, obviously not the post-mortem canonized kind). By “holy catholic church”, we meant about the same thing: all Christians universally are Christ’s one church. (Kind of redundant, now that I look back on it…)

This is how many of the Evangelicals in my family and people I know would define the “communion of saints”. However, who exactly is a Christian is another matter, so there is no universal standard by which one determines who they are in communion with. To some, if you don’t belong to that particular denomination or sect, you are not Christian. To others, if you have not been “born again” by answering the altar call and asking Jesus into your heart in a public manner, you are not a Christian. It all gets rather confusing.

 

[SecretaryMonday]

It all gets rather confusing.

Yes, it does!