Acts 19:1-6 vs Acts 10:44-48 Holy Spirit received AFTER or BEFORE baptism?

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Being Saved, have you read the parable of the persistent widow?

AND he spoke also a parable to them, that we ought always to pray, and not to faint, Saying: There was a judge in a certain city, who feared not God, nor regarded man. And there was a certain widow in that city, and she came to him, saying: Avenge me of my adversary. And he would not for a long time. But afterwards he said within himself: Although I fear not God, nor regard man, Yet because this widow is troublesome to me, I will avenge her, lest continually coming she weary me. And the Lord said: Hear what the unjust judge saith. And will not God revenge his elect who cry to him day and night: and will he have patience in their regard? I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? (Luke 18:1-8)

Remember to always pray and not to faint!

 

[PJM]

=BeingSaved;12105588]

**Acts 19:1-6 we read about those who received the Holy Spirit AFTER being baptized… but in Acts 10:44-48 we read about others who received the Holy Spirit BEFORE being baptized. **

Acts 19 RSVCE
19 While Apol′los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples (of Christ).

2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed (on Christ)?” And they said,*** “No,***(they had not yet received the Holy Spirit.)

We have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” (meaning repenting form sin and turning to Jesus, because they were disciples of Jesus)

4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”

5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (finished, their baptism was done and over,…and then…AFTERWARDS.)

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (notice what occurred when the H. Spirit came upon these people, they spoke with languages they had never learned and prophesied as well)

7 There were about twelve of them in all.

Acts 10:44-48

Gentiles Receive the Holy Spirit

***44 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. ***

45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.

46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,

47 “***Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” ***

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

You’re right, BUT I fail to see a problem with this.

In one case the Holy Spirit comes to affirm faith that already exist, and in the other case the HS comes to AID in understanding what is being taught so that they MAY choose the Faith.

Isaiah 55: 6-10 comes to mind:

“Seek ye the Lord, while he may be found: call upon him, while he is near. [7] Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God: for he is bountiful to forgive. [8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. [9] ***For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. ***[10] And as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return no more thither, but soak the earth, and water it, and make it to spring, and give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:”

Well done my friend,

Patrick

 

[ynotzap]

This is a fairly standard modern evangelical non-denomination way of looking at salvation.
It has resulted in a logical progression of deactivating sanctifying graces into purely symbolic acts which eventually become questioned as to their relevance and then tossed out because they interfere with what they get replaced with. They get replaced with the … sermons.

Eventually all that becomes required for salvation is a one off “accept Jesus” prayer call, which then has its outworking by the Holy Spirit ensuring it’s impossible for the believer to transgress, in action or word, and to develop a complete and accurate knowledge of evangelical truth, (assurance).

And so you are reading too much into the passage in Acts. There is no evidence that those who received the Holy Spirit did anything other than hear. It does not say they believed, it does not say they were justified, and it most certainly does not say they were born again. This is reading into the text to suit your knowledge of evangelical truth.

The Holy Spirit can come upon anyone for the sole purpose of witnessing to those around them. In this case it was a witness to Peter and the circumcised converts with him.

Then and only then did they begin to go through the process of salvation by washing of regeneration and renewal of Holy Spirit, only then did they go through the washed sanctified justified in the name of Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God process. The Biblical born again way.

Quote Darryl:
This is a fairly standard modern evangelical non-denomation way of looking at salvation.

To present Jesus Christ as God-man and Savior of man-kind, and to repent, and accept Him is just a standard non-denominational way, is not just standard, it is essential to receiving the gift of Faith. The world needs this Evangelization, and it needs is badly!
It is true that to follow up on Christ’s teaching is essential also. there is spiritual growth involved, and the means that are needed to assist in this growth, the Sacraments.

Quote: John Paul ll “The personal encounter with Jesus (is what is meant by are you saved, my addition) is the ultimate influence for social and economic behavior”

Quoteope Paul VI: The encounter will not take place unless the Gospel is proclaimed by witness. Never the less this is always insufficient because the finest witness will prove ineffective if not explained and justified and made explicit by clear unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus Christ by word.
THERE IS NO EVANGELIZATION IF THE NAME, TEACHINGS, LIFE, PROMISES, THE KINGDOM AND THE MYSTERY OF JESUS, THE SON OF GOD ARE NOT PROCLAIMED

Quote: St.Paul: (Phil 3:7-ll) I consider all as loss (dung-old translation) because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus, my Lord."
((l Col l: l5 -29) “…He is before all things, He is the beginning, that in all things He Himself might be pre-eminent …in Him were created all things, for Him and through Him…”

How does this diactivate Sanctifying Grace? I don’t think you meant that the way I stated evangeliztion diactivates sanctifying grace, but I’m calling the attention to the fact that without proclamation, there is no evangelization, is is initial, and essential, even if the follow-through is not complete. As a matter of fact many Catholics have gone through the process and have not been evangelized. the initial step is to turn from sin and turn to Christ as far a conversion is concerned, a personal encounter is necessary. (Have you been saved?

 

[sennincatholic]

This is a fairly standard modern evangelical non-denomination way of looking at salvation.
It has resulted in a logical progression of deactivating sanctifying graces into purely symbolic acts which eventually become questioned as to their relevance and then tossed out because they interfere with what they get replaced with. They get replaced with the … sermons.

Eventually all that becomes required for salvation is a one off “accept Jesus” prayer call, which then has its outworking by the Holy Spirit ensuring it’s impossible for the believer to transgress, in action or word, and to develop a complete and accurate knowledge of evangelical truth, (assurance).

And so you are reading too much into the passage in Acts. There is no evidence that those who received the Holy Spirit did anything other than hear. It does not say they believed, it does not say they were justified, and it most certainly does not say they were born again. This is reading into the text to suit your knowledge of evangelical truth.

The Holy Spirit can come upon anyone for the sole purpose of witnessing to those around them. In this case it was a witness to Peter and the circumcised converts with him.

Then and only then did they begin to go through the process of salvation by washing of regeneration and renewal of Holy Spirit, only then did they go through the washed sanctified justified in the name of Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God process. The Biblical born again way.

wao!good post!

 

[Cathoholic]

PJM. You said:

Quote:
You’re right, BUT I fail to see a problem with this.

In one case the Holy Spirit comes to affirm faith that already exist, and in the other case the HS comes to AID in understanding what is being taught so that they MAY choose the Faith.

I fail to see a problem with it too. But it perplexes many Protestants so it is reasonable to address it ofr them (not for you or I).

And I will try to do some of this here.

 

[Darryl_B]

Quote Darryl:
This is a fairly standard modern evangelical non-denomation way of looking at salvation.

To present Jesus Christ as God-man and Savior of man-kind, and to repent, and accept Him is just a standard non-denominational way, is not just standard, it is essential to receiving the gift of Faith. The world needs this Evangelization, and it needs is badly!
It is true that to follow up on Christ’s teaching is essential also. there is spiritual growth involved, and the means that are needed to assist in this growth, the Sacraments.

Quote: John Paul ll “The personal encounter with Jesus (is what is meant by are you saved, my addition) is the ultimate influence for social and economic behavior”

Quoteope Paul VI: The encounter will not take place unless the Gospel is proclaimed by witness. Never the less this is always insufficient because the finest witness will prove ineffective if not explained and justified and made explicit by clear unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus Christ by word.
THERE IS NO EVANGELIZATION IF THE NAME, TEACHINGS, LIFE, PROMISES, THE KINGDOM AND THE MYSTERY OF JESUS, THE SON OF GOD ARE NOT PROCLAIMED

Quote: St.Paul: (Phil 3:7-ll) I consider all as loss (dung-old translation) because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus, my Lord."
((l Col l: l5 -29) “…He is before all things, He is the beginning, that in all things He Himself might be pre-eminent …in Him were created all things, for Him and through Him…”

How does this diactivate Sanctifying Grace? I don’t think you meant that the way I stated evangeliztion diactivates sanctifying grace, but I’m calling the attention to the fact that without proclamation, there is no evangelization, is is initial, and essential, even if the follow-through is not complete. As a matter of fact many Catholics have gone through the process and have not been evangelized. the initial step is to turn from sin and turn to Christ as far a conversion is concerned, a personal encounter is necessary. (Have you been saved?

Please don’t take what I said out of context. You are confusing (Catholic) " (new?) evangelization" with the “evangelical” movement. They are not the same thing.

Have you been saved?, is a loaded question. It is reminiscent of the trial of Joan of Arc. Are you in a state of grace? The answer was “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.” The question is a scholarly trap. Church doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God’s grace. (cited from wikipedia).

I was an evangelical nondenominational for around 18 years, I was baptized and confirmed Catholic Easter 2014. Yes I was evangelized, but saved? That belongs to the Grace of God.

 

[ynotzap]

I was using "Have you you been saved in a humorous way. but I see it didn’t work, sorry, I thought you understood. My interpretation of the statement as I receive it from my Baptist brothers is “Have you had an encounter with Jesus, have you accepted Him as Savior” and my answer is “Yes” And this is crucial to Catholic Christian faith. It is very much needed in the world. As Jesus said when the apostles saw others casting out demons in His Name, He said let them, for if they are not against Me they are for me. The propagation of the message of Jesus, even though it may not be complete or may have some misunderstanding is still a positive way to spread the Good News. The ecumenical slogan suits the situation very well “Agree where you can, disagree where you must, all in the spirit of Love” Also one can be asurred of salvation if does all in his power to follow the teachings of Jesus, purify his life by receiving the means of grace, especially the Eucharist. And most of all by believing that he rather trust that Jesus takes him to Heaven then in anything he can do, but he will do his best to please God. The traditional Catholic way to answer the question might be and sometimes is “I won’t know until I get there” Your salvation is assured if your conscience is clear and you are disposed to receiving Jesus in Communion. He who eats my flesh, will never die, meaning “You will be united with Me forever in Paradise” Jesus save me from myself and the devil, and save my neighbor.

 

[PJM]

=Cathoholic;12111960]BeingSaved. You stated:

Yet 1st Peter 3:21 says . . .

1st Peter 3:21a Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you . . .

Of course in a sense you are correct. It is Jesus WHO saves them. But in another sense, HOW does Jesus give us the Holy Spirit? The answer is Baptism.

The Council of Trent talks of these differing senses and perhaps I will quote them soon (I may end up having a round of treatment for a malignancy later this week and may or may not be up to a timely post. I’ll have to wait and see).

You also talk about the spiritual gifts, distribution, etc. which is good.

But the issue is . . . HOW do you get on the entrance ramp to receive these gifts?

The answer is Baptism. At least by ordinary means. I’ll try to add more soon.

God bless.

Cathoholic

TWO Necessary comments IMO

1. God alone can determine how one’s Salvation is effected and affected.
2. Baptism “Saves” is a Conditional fact:

On the one hand it brings one into the Catholic Church from which ALL salvation’s flows,

And is a opportunity to participate in the Sacraments and their grace

The other factor is that Baptism BY ITSELF “saves” ONLY until that person commits a Mortal Sin. Then that salvation is at least temporarily forfeited until Sacramental Confession.

The Salvation of Baptism is in no way similar to Protestants OSAS philosophy.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Darryl_B]

I was using "Have you you been saved in a humorous way. but I see it didn’t work, sorry, I thought you understood. My interpretation of the statement as I receive it from my Baptist brothers is “Have you had an encounter with Jesus, have you accepted Him as Savior” and my answer is “Yes” And this is crucial to Catholic Christian faith. It is very much needed in the world. As Jesus said when the apostles saw others casting out demons in His Name, He said let them, for if they are not against Me they are for me. The propagation of the message of Jesus, even though it may not be complete or may have some misunderstanding is still a positive way to spread the Good News. The ecumenical slogan suits the situation very well “Agree where you can, disagree where you must, all in the spirit of Love” Also one can be asurred of salvation if does all in his power to follow the teachings of Jesus, purify his life by receiving the means of grace, especially the Eucharist. And most of all by believing that he rather trust that Jesus takes him to Heaven then in anything he can do, but he will do his best to please God. The traditional Catholic way to answer the question might be and sometimes is “I won’t know until I get there” Your salvation is assured if your conscience is clear and you are disposed to receiving Jesus in Communion. He who eats my flesh, will never die, meaning “You will be united with Me forever in Paradise” Jesus save me from myself and the devil, and save my neighbor.

My friend, what I read in your previous post was not humor, it was that you are frustrated that a generation of Catholics may not necessarily fully grasp their faith. I just wanted to assure you that things are not necessarily that bad, (although having said that things may not necessarily be that good).

 

[ynotzap]

If the matter and form of Baptism is the same in other religions: The matter being water and the form being the words “I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit” it is legitimate. this is one the reasons we can call some of other Christians :separated brothers. Agree where we can, disagree where we must, in the spirit of love. there is much to be shared but we must be open to the Holy Spirit. Christ desires one fold one shepherd, union in one Faith, the one He founded.

 

[anixx]

Us receiving this and maintaining faith to receive it is where I am at. This was also a problem for Jesus because in His home town people said they saw him as ‘Joseph’s’ son,
so did not believe on Him for healing and the results were different. The bible says that Jesus could do no mighty work amoung them because of their unbelief.

I am there, rooting out my unbelief, and doubts, and focusing on the faith side, of
Jesus already saying yes to my healing and me making a faith connection to God’s will for healing for me.

Why are focusing on the faith side if you are already saved? It’s redundant. Go out and have a good time! It couldn’t hurt, since God will save you whatever you do.

 

[Cathoholic]

PJM.

You stated the “conditional” aspect of salvation in regards to Baptism.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12116176&postcount=28

Good point. On my post I tried to convey this fact when I used the phrase “entrance ramp”.

Many Protestants are confused about what Baptism is (sometimes conflicting with fellow Protestants).

The goal of my post is to provide information, accurate info., but avoid a proverbial doctoral dissertation that they may not understand or even read.

I am on a tablet and I will try to post more to back up my statements when I can sit up at a computer with a full keyboard. Maybe later tonight or possibly is several days. I just don’t know yet when I can get to it.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[PNEUMA]

[Acts 19:1-6 Holy Spirit Received AFTER water baptism, Acts 10:44-48 Holy Spirit received BEFORE w.baptism

Jesus was baptized with the Holy Spirit and water at the same time.
[/quote]

 

[PJM]

=Cathoholic;12117051]PJM.

You stated the “conditional” aspect of salvation in regards to Baptism.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12116176&postcount=28

Good point. On my post I tried to convey this fact when I used the phrase “entrance ramp”.

Many Protestants are confused about what Baptism is (sometimes conflicting with fellow Protestants).

The goal of my post is to provide information, accurate info., but avoid a proverbial doctoral dissertation that they may not understand or even read.

I am on a tablet and I will try to post more to back up my statements when I can sit up at a computer with a full keyboard. Maybe later tonight or possibly is several days. I just don’t know yet when I can get to it.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Thanks so much

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Cathoholic]

BeingSaved. I see you have been banned since my last post. I will hope you are still checking in here to read and I will try to give you the info. I said I would.

(I’ll try to touch on Acts 19 in a different post on this thread later. For now let’s look at the Acts 10 issue and I will write some depth so if you are interested, you can copy and paste to your Baptism files and have ready access in the future to the ancient quotes I am also about to cite)

The question for all practical purposes was, if the Catholic teachings on Baptism and the concomitant reception of the Holy Spirit are so important, WHY can Cornelius in Acts 10:44 fall not just upon Cornelius, but upon his whole household?

ACTS 10:1-2, 34-35, 43-48 1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, 2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God. . . . 34 And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. . . . 43 To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” 44 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

The Catholic Church (echoing Jesus in John chapter 3) teaches you need to be born again, you need to be born of water and the Spirit, you need to be Baptized.

The ordinary means for this reception is Baptism. As far as we are aware, we are BOUND to this commandment. The Church knows of no other means that assures entry into eternal beatitude (and “assures” only if this grace is persisted in – if this saving grace is not later rejected by the Baptismal recipient).

Yet God Himself is not bound to this and MAY give someone the gift of the Holy Spirit outside of this usual way if they CANNOT utilize Baptism for some reason (but want to).

When God gives someone the Holy Spirit outside these means (outside of Baptism), it is called an extraordinary reception of the Holy Spirit.

Ordinary Means

• Baptism

Extraordinary Means

• Baptism of Desire (for those who through no fault of their own cannot be Baptized in the usual manner.)
• Baptism of Blood (Martyrdom)

Let’s back up and review some of this again only using the CCC.

As far as we are aware, we are BOUND to this commandment. The Church knows of no other means that assures entry into eternal beatitude (“assures” if this grace is persisted in and not later rejected by the Baptismal recipient).

**
CCC 1257 a,b** The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.”

Yet God Himself is not bound and MAY give someone the gift of the Holy Spirit outside of this usual way.

CCC 1257 c *God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. *

(Italics in CCC 1257 original)

People come into Christ AND His Church via Baptism. Yet what about those who through “no fault of their own” are unaware of this?

Fortunately the CCC tells us what their situation is too.

CCC 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
​

Now let’s look at WHY Cornelius receives the Holy Spirit BEFORE he (and his household) get Baptized.

Recall all the first Christians were Jews.

See next post . . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

It would be a HUGE new event to have anyone but a Jew come into Christianity at the time of Acts 10 (and it was a huge event).

Go back and read all of Acts 10 and see what it took to even get St. Peter sent to a Gentiles home. This was considered an unlawful (by Old Covenant law) action.

ACTS 10:28 28 and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

And St. Peter was later subject to scrutiny by “the circumcision party” for doing this.

ACTS 11:3b “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?”

And there were 3 witnesses that joined St. Peter and we even find out there were 6 other witnesses too.

ACTS 11:11-12 11 At that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. 12 And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brethren also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house.

Cornelius reception of the Holy Spirit was accompanied by notable signs that would give support to what St. Peter was teaching to the Jews. It would HAVE to be that way.

So this is WHY St. Peter himself would be chosen (due to his authoritative position) to bring the first Gentiles into the Church.

And this seismic change is also WHY it would be necessary (not for Cornelius, but for the Jews) to receive the Holy Spirit BEFORE Baptism and a reception of the Holy Spirit in a visible manifest way!

So yes for Cornelius (and his whole household), they DO receive the Holy Spirit first (and are immediately Baptized afterwards). But for us others, it is NOT that way (ordinarily).

This is WHY St. Gregory of Nazienzen the late 300’s A.D. can just matter of factly say . . . .

St. Gregory of Nazienzen (The Holy Spirit) comes upon Cornelius and his companions before Baptism, to others after Baptism.

This is the “exception” not the norm.

As Tim Staples has said: “You don’t use an exception to establish the norm”.

The “norm” is Baptism first. The Holy Spirit comes upon Cornelius and his companions before Baptism, to others . . . . during and again after Baptism.

(I don’t want to complicate things for you, but in the Eastern Church they routinely give Baptism and the completion of Baptism [Sacrament of **Confirmation] one right after the other and that is almost certainly why St. Gregory states, “after” instead of “during” Baptism here.)

Now I will try to give some quotes from the Fathers backing up what I said about the “seismic” shift of the Gentiles coming into the Church for your behalf.

Continued . . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

Let’s listen to St. Augustine in the late 300’s or early 400’s.

ST. AUGUSTINE “Sion heard of it, and rejoiced” (verse 8). What did Sion hear? That all His Angels worship Him. . . . For the Church was not as yet among the Gentiles; in Judaea the Jews had some of them believed, and the very Jews who believed thought that they only belonged to Christ: the Apostles were sent to the Gentiles, Cornelius was preached to; Cornelius believed, was baptized, and they who were with Cornelius were also baptized.(3) But ye know what happened, that they might be baptized: the reader indeed hath not reached this point, but, nevertheless, some recollect; and let those who do not recollect, hear briefly from me. The Angel was sent to Cornelius: the Angel sent Cornelius to Peter; Peter came to Cornelius. And because Cornelius and his household were Gentiles, and uncircumcised: lest they might hesitate to give the Gospel to the uncircumcised: before Cornelius and his household were baptized, the Holy Spirit came, and filled them, and they began to speak with tongues. Now the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon any one who had not been baptized: but upon these it fell before baptism. For Peter might hesitate whether he might baptize the uncircumcised: the Holy Spirit came, they began to speak with tongues; the invisible gift was given, and took away all doubt about the visible Sacrament; they were all baptized.
– From St. Augustine on the Psalms - PSALM XCVII – Section 11

Also here is Pope St. Gregory the Great from the 500’s A.D. on Acts 10.

POPE ST. GREGORY THE GREAT For certainly Peter had received power in the heavenly kingdom, so that whatever he should bind or loose on earth should be bound or loosed in heaven; he walked on the sea, he healed the sick with his shadow, be slew sinners with his word, he raised the dead by his prayer. And because by the admonition of the Spirit he had gone in to Cornelius the Gentile, a question was raised against him by the believers as to why he had gone in among Gentiles and eaten with them, and why he had received them in baptism.

And yet this first of the apostles, filled with such gifts of grace, supported by such power of miracles, replied to the complaint of the believers, not by power but by reason, and explained . . . . how three men came to him calling him to Cornelius; how the Holy Spirit bade him go with them; how the same Holy Spirit who had been wont to come on those baptized in Judea after baptism, came on the Gentiles before baptism. For if, when he was blamed by the believers, he had paid regard to the authority which he had received in Holy Church, he might have replied that the sheep should not dare to find fault with the shepherd to whom they had been committed. But, had he said anything of his own power in answer to the complaint of the believers, he would not have been truly a teacher of gentleness. He pacified them, therefore, by giving a reason humbly, and even produced witnesses to defend him from blame, saying, Moreover these six brethren accompanied me (Acts xi. 12).
– The Great Epistles Book XI. EPISTLE XLV: TO THEOCTISTA, PATRICIAN

Again St. Augustine this time from his letter against the Donatist heretics BOOK IV, Chapter 1 (De Bartismo contra Donatistas).

Remember the Lord brought all the Donatist heretics BACK to the Church through St. Augustine! There is NO Donatist heresy (proper) since St. Augustine!

Incidentally, this was shown nicely in the recent movie Restless Heart—The Confessions of St. Augustine (at least in the longer version—they include both versions when you get the DVD) along with a brief into to St. Ambrose who himself was used to convert St. Augustine to the Catholic faith.

St. Augustine also talks of this and Baptism in the following (I added the “Magus” for clarity) . . .

ST. AUGUSTINE With regard to the objection brought against Cyprian, that the catechumens who were seized in martyrdom, and slain for Christ’s name’s sake, received a crown even without baptism, I do not quite see what it has to do with the matter, unless, indeed, they urged that heretics could much more be admitted with baptism to Christ’s kingdom, to which catechumens were admitted without it, since He Himself has said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (1) Now, in this matter I do not hesitate for a moment to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with love for God, before the baptized heretic; nor yet do we thereby do dishonor to the sacrament of baptism which the latter has already received, the former not as yet; nor do we consider that the sacrament of the catechumen (2) is to be preferred to the sacrament of baptism, when we acknowledge that some catechumens are better and more faithful than some baptized persons. For the centurion Cornelius, before baptism, was better than Simon (Magus), who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled with the Holy Spirit;(3) Simon (Magus), even after baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit.(4) Cornelius, however, would have been convicted of contempt for so holy a sacrament, if, even after he had received the Holy Ghost, he had refused to be baptized. But when he was baptized, he received in no wise a better sacrament than Simon (Magus) . . . .
— St. Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists.

I hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Cathoholic]

Late typo alert on my post 35 (apologies from me for not catching this)

This:

The question for all practical purposes was, if the Catholic teachings on Baptism and the concomitant reception of the Holy Spirit are so important, WHY can Cornelius in Acts 10:44 fall not just upon Cornelius, but upon his whole household?

SHOULD BE this:

QUOTE:
The question for all practical purposes was, if the Catholic teachings on Baptism and the concomitant reception of the Holy Spirit are so important, WHY can the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:44 fall not just upon Cornelius, but upon his whole household (BEFORE Baptism)?

 

[Cathoholic]

BeingSaved. I will hope you are still checking in here to read on this thread. Regarding the passage in Acts 19:1-6

ACTS 19:1-6 1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Your issue was basically: If the Catholic teaching of Baptism were true, WHY do people receive the Holy Spirit, NOT at Baptism but upon the laying on of hands (Acts 19:1-6)?

People DO receive the Holy Spirit when being Baptized.

ACTS 2:38-39a 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children . . .

You can’t take Acts 19:1-6 and pit it against Acts 2:38 OK? This is a flawed methodology in interpreting Sacred Scripture.

BeingSaved. I invite you to believe BOTH sets of verses.

As you said earlier (quoting Scripture): “The bible says that Jesus could do no mighty work amoung (sic) them because of their unbelief.”

(although I am sure they all would have SAID and THOUGHT that G-d (Yahweh ) was working mightily in their lives at that time just as I am sure you do and I do too. But because we think and feel that way, doesn’t make it so. This needs to get beyond mere feelings and get to truths. Truths in Scripture that you are unfortunately denying [but you wouldn’t put it that way])

Now considering Acts 19:1-6, these people had not had Christian Baptism (in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit). That’s WHY they are now getting Christian Baptism in Acts 19:5.

ACTS 19:5 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Some people seem to think this means . . .

NOT ACTS 19:5 (Phantom Verse) 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but did NOT receive the Holy Spirit when this Baptism occurred.

This would be an error.

Objection: But the verses say these guys receive the Holy Spirit when hands are laid upon them.

Answer: True. The verse DOES say that. Confirmation is the completion of Baptism (see CCC 1304 and 1285 for example). BUT . . . .

These people receive the Holy Spirit BOTH when they are Baptized AND when they are Confirmed.

And notice what the verse doesn’t say . . . .

NOT ACTS 19:5-6 (Phantom Verse) 5 On hearing this, they did a sinners prayer and accepted Jesus into their hearts as personal Lord and Savior. Then they went out and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus to show the community they had the gift of the Holy Spirit. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, they said thank you but nothing else Sacramentally occurred.

Despite you saying:

Then afterwards, they had a water baptism, after the salvation and justification occurred.

Now let’s look at what the verse really says.

ACTS 19:5-6 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

You will probably object and say: “Well they can’t receive the Holy Spirit twice!?”

But you’d be wrong (if you think that). The Blessed Virgin Mary received the Holy Spirit in a lot larger way than you or I at the Incarnation. Yet the Blessed Virgin Mary received the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room too.

You might object saying that Acts 19:5 doesn’t SPECIFICALLY say they received the Holy Spirit upon being Baptized. But Acts 2:28 does. And besides, There is no verse that says you receive the Holy Spirit upon a sinners prayer either.

Come to think of it, there is no verse that GIVES a sinners prayer either (at least the way they taught it to me in Baptist Sunday School that I recall).

Acts 19:1-6 is talking about Baptism (where people DO receive the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised in John 3:5) followed by Confirmation (where people likewise DO receive the Holy Spirit).

I hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[ynotzap]

BeingSaved. I will hope you are still checking in here to read on this thread. Regarding the passage in Acts 19:1-6

ACTS 19:1-6 1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Your issue was basically: If the Catholic teaching of Baptism were true, WHY do people receive the Holy Spirit, NOT at Baptism but upon the laying on of hands (Acts 19:1-6)?

People DO receive the Holy Spirit when being Baptized.

ACTS 2:38-39a 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children . . .

You can’t take Acts 19:1-6 and pit it against Acts 2:38 OK? This is a flawed methodology in interpreting Sacred Scripture.

BeingSaved. I invite you to believe BOTH sets of verses.

As you said earlier (quoting Scripture): “The bible says that Jesus could do no mighty work amoung (sic) them because of their unbelief.”

(although I am sure they all would have SAID and THOUGHT that G-d (Yahweh ) was working mightily in their lives at that time just as I am sure you do and I do too. But because we think and feel that way, doesn’t make it so. This needs to get beyond mere feelings and get to truths. Truths in Scripture that you are unfortunately denying [but you wouldn’t put it that way])

Now considering Acts 19:1-6, these people had not had Christian Baptism (in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit). That’s WHY they are now getting Christian Baptism in Acts 19:5.

ACTS 19:5 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Some people seem to think this means . . .

NOT ACTS 19:5 (Phantom Verse) 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but did NOT receive the Holy Spirit when this Baptism occurred.

This would be an error.

Objection: But the verses say these guys receive the Holy Spirit when hands are laid upon them.

Answer: True. The verse DOES say that. Confirmation is the completion of Baptism (see CCC 1304 and 1285 for example). BUT . . . .

These people receive the Holy Spirit BOTH when they are Baptized AND when they are Confirmed.

And notice what the verse doesn’t say . . . .

NOT ACTS 19:5-6 (Phantom Verse) 5 On hearing this, they did a sinners prayer and accepted Jesus into their hearts as personal Lord and Savior. Then they went out and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus to show the community they had the gift of the Holy Spirit. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, they said thank you but nothing else Sacramentally occurred.

Despite you saying:

Now let’s look at what the verse really says.

ACTS 19:5-6 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

You will probably object and say: “Well they can’t receive the Holy Spirit twice!?”

But you’d be wrong (if you think that). The Blessed Virgin Mary received the Holy Spirit in a lot larger way than you or I at the Incarnation. Yet the Blessed Virgin Mary received the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room too.

You might object saying that Acts 19:5 doesn’t SPECIFICALLY say they received the Holy Spirit upon being Baptized. But Acts 2:28 does. And besides, There is no verse that says you receive the Holy Spirit upon a sinners prayer either.

Come to think of it, there is no verse that GIVES a sinners prayer either (at least the way they taught it to me in Baptist Sunday School that I recall).

Acts 19:1-6 is talking about Baptism (where people DO receive the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised in John 3:5) followed by Confirmation (where people likewise DO receive the Holy Spirit).

I hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

I have a problem:
as Peter was talking to Cornelius about the way, Jesus, the Good News, the Spirit fell on them and they spoke in Tongues, and praised God. Now these Charisms are not signs of Sanctifying grace, but of edifying grace, a grace to draw, and to build the church. These graces confirmed the Good News. Peter then ordered them to be baptized to make them adopted children of God, and to receive the sanctifying Spirit from Christ. I get the impression that somehow this Sanctifying Spirit was received before they were Baptized The Sacrament of Baptism gives sanctifying grace, and signifies the grace it gives This didn,t take place until after the manifestation of the Holy Spirits actions which were from all evidence charismatic. When the Apostles received the Holly Spirit as parted tongues of fire, they were confirmed in the sanctifying grace they already had, and it empowered them with Charismatic gifts to attract people to the church, and to confirm what they were preaching. Some clarification, if I am wrong is needed to rectify my understanding. It would seem they were actual graces?