Jesus baptized the Apostles

De Maria March 4, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Douglass October 27, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Maybe I don’t understand an answer you gave to Michelle on 10/26. She asked about John the Baptist and Jesus doing full emersion baptism. Part of your answer was that Jesus never did any baptisms. Yet in paragraph 7 of “Are You Born Again” you state,” He (Jesus) went down and baptized people in the Jordan with his disciples” (Jn 4:1-2). I read these verses in Chapter 4 and verse 2 states *(although Jesus himself was not baptizing, just his disciples). So I see Jesus didn’t baptize, but I don’t understand your reply in paragraph 7 of your article. If you have time can you clear up this for me. Thank you for your help.

Hi, I’m not responding to your question to Steve. I’m giving my opinion in the meaning of the seemingly contradictory Scripture verses. First one verse says that Jesus baptized. Then another says that only His disciples baptized.

I think though, that Jesus had to get the ball rolling, so to speak. Who baptized the Apostles? True, some of them were baptized by St. John. But St. John’s baptism did not give the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus had to re-baptize those Apostles. And baptize the rest. And then, presumably, delegated the duty of baptizing the masses to them.

That is my speculative explanation intended to explain the seeming contradiction in those two verses.

Full submersion Baptism

De Maria March 4, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Hi michelle,

i heard this discussion on the radio. i was raised catholic, but married a divorced man and now attend a non-denominational church. Here is my question–john the baptist and jesus all did full submersion baptism.

There is an assumption here. The assumption being that they ONLY did full submersion Baptism.

how can/does the Catholic church justify infant sprinkling ?

By the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18-19; Matt 28:19-20; John 20:21-23)

1. the infant is not old enough to make the choice on their own

In the Gospels, the children which Jesus saved were too young to seek His aid on their own. Their parents needed to do it for them. And Jesus always healed them on behalf of their parents. (Matthew 15:28; John 4:50).

Why then, would Jesus refuse to save the little children in Baptism? (Matthew 19:14)

and 2. the baptism is not submersion–like john the baptist and Jesus.

According to the Tradition of the Catholic Church, all three types of Baptism are permitted.

If you want to interpret the requirement of Baptism according to the letter, then you must be Baptized in the Jordan River. There is no other river mentioned where anyone else was Baptized.

By the way, full submersion is not mentioned either. That is a Protestant reading into Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Catholic and Protestant presuppositions are different

So, then, it is paramount to discover which presupposition is true. Does that sound logical?

My fellow Catholics can correct me if I’m wrong. But I believe the Catholic Church teaches us the following.

1. Jesus Christ did not write any Scripture.
2. Jesus Christ established a Church.
3. Jesus Christ commanded the Church to teach all which He commanded.

Do you deny any of these three?

Those are the basis of our presupposition which can be found in CCC #113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).

We can also see this presupposition confirmed in Scripture and how the Apostles applied it:

Matthew 28:19-20

King James Version (KJV)

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Luke 24:44-46
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Acts 17:1-3
1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

So, to summarize, we believe that Jesus Christ established a Church and commanded that Church to pass on His Sacred Tradition. That Sacred Tradition includes the knowledge that the Old Testament Scriptures reveal Christ. In other words, the Sacred Tradition of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament in the sense that it contains and explains how Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecies.

But that is not all. Sacred Tradition is the basis of the New Testament. Jesus Christ did not write it. His followers wrote it based upon His life, deeds and Teachings.

Therefore, one must know and understand Sacred Tradition in order to understand the Scriptures. And since the Church is the one which has maintained these Sacred Traditions, she is the one which best understands the Scriptures.

Basically, Protestants deny all of this.  They cast aside the authority of the Church, they cast aside the authority of Sacred Tradition.  They claim that all their authority is derived by their personal understanding of the Bible, in spite of the fact that the Bible nowhere authorizes such an attitude.

What say you?