Baptism unnessesary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
6

6glargento

Guest
i was given teh following verses by a non catholic to supposedly show that one only needs to believe to recieve teh gif of the holy spirit.

“He related to us how he had seen (the) angel standing in his house, saying, ‘Send someone to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter,
who will speak words to you by which you and all your household will be saved.’
As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning,
and I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.’
If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?” (acts 11:13-17)

thus suggesting that the “baptism of the holy spirit” is separate from water baptsim and that one only needs to believe in jesus to recieve the power of the holy spirit and be saved.

“While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word.
The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also,
for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded,
“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?”
He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”
(acts 10:44-48)

here we see people recieving the power of the holy spirit before they were baptised.

I know that there are plenty of scripture to support the idea of baptismal regeneration but i keep getting the argument

“the baptism which saves is the baptsim of the holy spirit which is separate from water baptism”

how should i respond to this. I know that somone on here posted a similar topic but i can’t seem to find it anymore. thanks for your comments
 
6glargento said:
i was given teh following verses by a non catholic to supposedly show that one only needs to believe to recieve teh gif of the holy spirit.

“He related to us how he had seen (the) angel standing in his house, saying, ‘Send someone to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter,
who will speak words to you by which you and all your household will be saved.’
As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning,
and I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.'
If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?” (acts 11:13-17)

thus suggesting that the “baptism of the holy spirit” is separate from water baptsim and that one only needs to believe in jesus to recieve the power of the holy spirit and be saved.

“While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word.
The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also,
for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded,
“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?”
He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”
(acts 10:44-48)

here we see people recieving the power of the holy spirit before they were baptised.

I know that there are plenty of scripture to support the idea of baptismal regeneration but i keep getting the argument

“the baptism which saves is the baptsim of the holy spirit which is separate from water baptism”

how should i respond to this. I know that somone on here posted a similar topic but i can’t seem to find it anymore. thanks for your comments
Click to expand...
There are two types of Baptism, Water Baptism (normal Baptism) which is explicitly said to be salvific (eg Acts 22:16) and “Baptism in the Holy Spirit AND FIRE”
The “Baptisim of the Holy Spirit AND FIRE” is a direct reference to places like Matt 3:11 “John said, I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”
…whats this “Holy Spirit and fire”…Acts 2:
3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
This “Holy Spirit and fire” is talking about the gift of tongues, its an extraordinary gift not given to everyone (infact only given 2 times in the NT). At no time were people not told to get Baptized (water), infact in each case they are commanded to.
 
As far as the arguments of the anti-baptism crowd go: :yawn:

Check this out as a starting point. I recently posted it on another thread where this general subject came up.

You know, if I was the devil, and Baptism was essential to salvation, I’d certainly do whatever it took to keep as many people as possible from getting baptized. Since the most effective lies contain a grain of truth, I think I’d spread the word that Baptism is neato and peachy and all that, but it’s only a symbol, so it’s not really necessary.
 
Cornelius is a special case (which demonstrates that God isn’t strictly bound to the sacraments in order to save, but that doesn’t mean He doesn’t normally or typically save through sacraments). The idea of God granting salvation to Gentiles and admitting them into His covenant was very controversial among the Jews. If Peter had simply baptized Cornelius, it could still have been argued by some that Peter acted on his own without any authority from God. But with God giving the gift of the Holy Spirit in a visible way, there could be no argument, as we see later in chapter 11:15-18.

I frequently hear from Protestants that there are “different” baptisms for Christians, but I don’t know how they reconcile that with Ephesians 4:5, which speaks of “*one *Lord, *one *faith, *one *baptism.”
 
I frequently hear from Protestants that there are “different” baptisms for Christians, but I don’t know how they reconcile that with Ephesians 4:5, which speaks of “*one *Lord, *one *faith, *one *baptism.”

Thats easy. They will say that Baptism in the Holy Spirit is the one baptism, not water. They are two separate things…
 
Here is a good baptism overview by Scott Hahn.
It is the first part of program 11 (Gospels II) of the audio series “Our Fathers Plan” Starting around the three minute mark and finishing around the 13 minute mark.
Scott takes John chapter 3 (born again) and puts into context of the rest of the book of John.
It is very good, and very informative.👍

Here is streambox ripper download, where you can convert real audio to mp3 format to listen to programs away from computer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top