There's a couple seriously scary things in this one post:
Wow, could you exemplify the need for this thread's existence any better?
She has not explained why her Word-of-Faith/Neo-Pentecostalism/Prosperity/"Name It and Claim It" religion is not faithfully represented by those who are considered the leaders of her religion -- Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin, Benny Hinn, Suzanne Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, etc.
She is free to explain then what she means by "the anointing" that she says I don't believe in and how I am denying the existence of the Holy Ghost by not participating in these activities.
Notice the heart condition is irrelevant, the action is all that matters
I assume by "heart condition", you are not referring to Dick Cheney's ticking time bomb but faith. Who said faith was irrelevant to Baptism? I already said the two are inseparable.
More specifically, faith is not
necessary for Baptism to impart a character. We recognize Protestant baptisms as long as they are done correctly ("I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost") and not Jesus-Only or liberal nonsense (e.g. "the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sustainer") or Mormon (Trinitarian formula but the theology is so off it invalidates the sacrament).
The situation today is not really any different than it was for Pope St. Gregory the Great 1400 years ago. Outside the Church there are some with valid baptisms (cf. most Protestants) and some with invalid baptisms because they don't use the Trinitarian formula (cf. Jesus-Only) and some with invalid baptisms because their conception of the Trinity is so far off base that they don't really refer to the Trinity even when they make the invocation (cf. Mormons).
Pope St. Gregory the Great said:
And indeed we have learned from the ancient institution of the Fathers that whosoever among heretics are baptized in the name of the Trinity, when they return to holy Church, may be recalled to the bosom of mother Church either by unction of chrism, or by imposition of hands, or by profession of the faith only. Hence the West reconciles Arians to the holy Catholic Church by imposition of hands, but the East by the unction of holy chrism.
But Monophysites and others are received by a true confession only, because holy baptism, which they have received among heretics, then acquires in them the power of cleansing, when either the former receive the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands, or the latter are united to the bowels of the holy and universal Church by reason of their confession of the true faith.
Those heretics, however, who are not baptized in the name of the Trinity, such as the Bonosiaci and the Cataphrygæ, because the former do not believe in Christ the Lord, and the latter with a perverse understanding believe a certain bad man, Montanus, to be the Holy Spirit, like whom are many others—
these, when they come to holy Church, are baptized, because what they received while in their error, not being in the name of the Holy Trinity, was not baptism. [
Source.]
(There are some groups that still hold an Arian theology [e.g. some Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses], Monophysites are now called "Oriental Orthodox", Bonosiaci were Adoptionists [who believe that Christ
became God at His Baptism] and the Cataphrygae were also called "Montanists").
Thus faith is not necessary for the character of Baptism to be imparted. However, the person doesn't receive the actual graces of Baptism unless they have faith ("holy baptism, which they have received among heretics,
then acquires in them the power of cleansing").
St. Thomas explains more clearly:
Summa said:
As appears from what has been said above (63, 6; 66, 9) Baptism produces a twofold effect in the soul, viz. the character and grace. Therefore in two ways may a thing be necessary for Baptism. First, as something without which grace, which is the ultimate effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus right faith is necessary for Baptism, because, as it appears from Romans 3:22, the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ.
Secondly, something is required of necessity for Baptism, because without it the baptismal character cannot be imprinted. And thus right faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the one who baptizes: provided the other conditions are fulfilled which are essential to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by the righteousness of the minister or of the recipient of Baptism, but by the power of God.
Rom 3:22 said:
Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction:
ibid said:
Objection 1. It seems that faith is required on the part of the one baptized. For the sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ. But Christ, in giving the form of Baptism, makes faith to precede Baptism (Mark 16:16): "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." Therefore it seems that without faith there can be no sacrament of Baptism.
...
Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord is speaking there of Baptism as bringing us to salvation by giving us sanctifying grace: which of course cannot be without right faith: wherefore He says pointedly: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved."
Mk 16:16 said:
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
St. Augustine says similarly when he says,
St. Augustine said:
In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remits. For how can they say, Our Father, who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins. If Catechumens, how much more Pagans? How much more heretics? But to heretics we do not change their baptism. Why? Because they have baptism in the same way as a deserter has the soldier's mark: just so these also have Baptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet if the deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does any man dare to change his mark?
Thus faith is not necessary for the
character of Baptism to be imparted, but it is necessary for the
effect of Baptism -- that is, the remission of sins and thus salvation.
Now, heretics do not have faith.
Summa said:
Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.
The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.
So it would seem that Protestants do not have the effect of Baptism but only character. But read it closer -- "a heretic who
disbelieves one article of faith" (
haereticus qui discredit unum articulum fidei) and "if he is not
obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error" (
si enim non pertinaciter, iam non est haereticus, sed solum errans). Therefore the child who is Baptized in a Protestant church receives the effect of Baptism because they are not guilty of the defective faith of their Church. Furthermore, even most Protestants do not
obstinately deny any of the truths of the faith, but simply hold to what they have received -- much of which
is the Catholic faith. Therefore, they are in error but do not actively sin against the faith and therefore receive the effect of Baptism.
So it is not true that the "heart condition" does not matter, it does, but it is a complex question.
