Why is Baptist baptism valid?

[milkbar]

I was raised Southern Baptist. I was always taught baptism is an act of obedience, merely symbolic, etc.

Given that this is the belief of the church, I can reasonably conclude that this is the belief of the minister performing the baptism. Although he uses the proper words and believes he is doing something important, he does not intend for the baptism to have any actual function.

Can such a baptism truly be valid if it is not intended to do what a Catholic baptism does?

 

[EasterJoy]

I want to hear what the more standardized explanation is, but I think you underestimate the value of intending to do exactly what the Lord commanded us to do, in the manner the Lord commanded that it be done. For instance, it is not necessary for a priest to have faith when he performs a sacrament for the sacrament to be effective. It is only necessary that he, a valid minister of the sacrament, performs it in a valid manner. The Holy Spirit takes care of the rest.

 

[Montalo]

CCC

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.58
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3L.HTM

the CCC says that <>

i am no theologian, but it seems that it shouldnt be valid, by i do not know.

 

[thistle]

I was raised Southern Baptist. I was always taught baptism is an act of obedience, merely symbolic, etc.

Given that this is the belief of the church, I can reasonably conclude that this is the belief of the minister performing the baptism. Although he uses the proper words and believes he is doing something important, he does not intend for the baptism to have any actual function.

Can such a baptism truly be valid if it is not intended to do what a Catholic baptism does?

In extreme circumstances even an atheist can validly baptise someone. For example, if a person is near death, and they wish to be baptised (obviously because they believe in Christ) the atheist can fulfill that person’s wishes and pouring water baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I was raised Southern Baptist. I was always taught baptism is an act of obedience, merely symbolic, etc.

Given that this is the belief of the church, I can reasonably conclude that this is the belief of the minister performing the baptism. Although he uses the proper words and believes he is doing something important, he does not intend for the baptism to have any actual function.

Can such a baptism truly be valid if it is not intended to do what a Catholic baptism does?

I understand your confusion.

I myself was a Southern Baptist before I got saved and left them.

Explain your perplexities to the pastor, and let your conscience rest in his decision.

This is ultimately a PASTORAL, and not a canonical issue.

 

[Batfink]

It seems to be quite a common worry amongst ex-Baptists. I don’t know the answer as to whether/why its valid, since I’ve not had personal experience of Baptist baptism, but both the Baptists I know who were received into the Church requested (and were granted) a conditional baptism. If it bothers you, then you could ask for this.

 

[SMHW]

A baptist minister intends to do what the Church does when she baptizes.

He may not fully recognize who the Church is. And he may have a misguided opinion of what the Church intends to do. But he does intend to do what the Church intends.

In fact, there are priests who don’t fully recognize the Church and who have misguided ideas about what the Church intends. If a full recognition of the Church was required along with a full understanding of the sacraments then it seems unlikely ANY sacrament could be valid.

Fortunately Christ works through and in spite of our failings.

 

[peary]

I was raised Southern Baptist. I was always taught baptism is an act of obedience, merely symbolic, etc.

Given that this is the belief of the church, I can reasonably conclude that this is the belief of the minister performing the baptism. Although he uses the proper words and believes he is doing something important, he does not intend for the baptism to have any actual function.

Can such a baptism truly be valid if it is not intended to do what a Catholic baptism does?

It doesn’t matter what a Southern Baptist thinks. If a Baptism is performed using the Trinitarian formula as outlined in Scripture, it is a valid Baptism. That’s how I see it. The sad point is, although they are members of the Body of Christ because of valid Baptism, they are separated from it at the same time because they are separated from Christ’s Church.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I think the main concern is not what the Southern Baptist minister thinks about the Sacrament, but the separation of the invocation of the Trinity and the action of baptizing that is often done in Southern Baptist baptisms.

I have raised this concern with a couple of priests and they seem to be open to to the idea of a conditional baptism based on this.