"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[ryanoneil]

BALONEY! When we believe the gospel, that is what forgives our sins, We are Saved! 1Cor 15:2-4 and Eph 1:13. ED O.

What you don’t realize is both of these verses speak about baptism, which is the anointing spoken of here

But the one who gives us security with you in Christ and who anointed us is God; he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment. (2 Cor 1:22)

Paul said that baptism does to the soul what circumcision did to the body; it marks it with the sign and seal of the covenant.

And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal on the righteousness received through faith while he was uncircumcised. Thus he was to be the father of all the uncircumcised who believe, so that to them (also) righteousness might be credited (Rom 4:11)

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)

 

[ryanoneil]

Church Fathers

“We are circumcised not with a fleshly circumcision but with the circumcision of Christ, that is, we are born again into a new man; for, being buried with Him in His baptism, we must die to the old man, because the regeneration of baptism has the force of resurrection.” Hilary of Poitiers, Trinity, 9:9 (A.D. 359).

“The baptized when they come up are sanctified;–the sealed when they go down are pardoned.—They who come up have put on glory;–they who go down have cast off sin.” Ephraim Syrus, Hymns for the Feast of the Epiphany, 6:9 (ante A.D. 373).

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

“Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381).

“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 4:24:31 (A.D. 400).

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Panevino
Hi Ed,

have you seen my post
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5923395&postcount=749

if you have some time, i’d like to read your response.

also
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5918695&postcount=720

if you have the time can you put together a stonger argument for dividing “water and spirit” in john 3:5

Hi Panevino, Yes I have read your posts on tongues but that’s not the topic of this thread, the only reason that it came up is because of Acts 8:17-----Now about making a stronger argument about John 3:5, I already have done so. But you now tell me just because the word water is mentioned there how can you automatically assume that it means baptism? -----How would Nicodemus know anything at all about baptism?----Why is Jesus in verse v6 referring back to v 5 by saying, Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit, if verse 5 wasn’t about physical birth?---- What would be the purpose of this verse if v5 meant baptism? ----- If verse 5 meant baptism Jesus would have continued to explain to Nicodemus more about baptism wouldn’t He? -----If we are saved by “water” baptism, why would Jesus have to die on the cross?-----You seem to have it backwards. It appears that you believe that “water” baptism saves and some how Jesus comes into the picture and died for our sins.----- In plain English, we are saved by belief in Jesus (gospel) and to show our repentance, 1Peter 3:21a pledge of a good conscience and entrance to the community we are baptized.-----You seem to have some kind of a mistaken idea that the water in the Rite of baptism is Holy,and as a result we are born again by it. Read John 1:12, John 12:48, Rom 1:16.----- In Acts 2:41 Only those who believed were baptized.------Mark says,“whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16), because baptism should follow belief. Nowhere does it say, “whoever is not baptized will be condemned.” Yet Jesus said that “whoever does not believe has already been condemned.” John 3:18. ----- Acts 20:21 & 1Thes 1:9, speaks about the repentance, Acts 17:30-34 after Paul preached the gospel, " A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areppagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others." These people believed and got saved. No mention of any baptism here, However; I’m sure at sometime later they were baptized to show repentance.
ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Beneditus2
Mark 15:16-17 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages.

And this is exactly what happened at Pentecost. They started speaking languages new to them because they were able to speak the languages of all the people gathered there. And the purpose of this is so that they can proclaim the gospel to every one whatever the language whatever the creed, gentile or jew.

And yes, take note of the fact that it is written that the precondition for salvation is more than just belief. You must also be baptised You have it backwards. Belief comes first and baptism is second or postcondition. Here Jesus says,“Whoever does not believe will be condemned” Nowhere in the Bible does it say, Whoever is not baptized will be condemned." ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Bob4BVM
Ed, I have to ask WHY is it that you feel a need to even question Baptism ? I have had similar discussions with Evangelical / fundamentalist friends, and they also are very repulsed by the Catholic understanding of Baptism. As they are by the Catholic understanding of Holy Eucharist. But none of them has answered my question - why ?
On either subject

I suppose it’s because of the Catholic teaching that the original sin is forgiven by “water” baptism and as a result there’s a born again experience. This is not true. The only forgiveness of sins is by the Blood of Jesus. I don’t question the need for “water” baptism, I question what is its purpose. Mat 3:11 John specifically states, “I baptize you with “water” for repentance” And that’s its purpose. ED O.

 

[SteveGC]

Hi Ed,

You seem to frequently forget (I don’t think you ignore) that we believe that faith is a prerequisite to water baptism…if we do not have faith, then the water baptism has no effect on us.

And another thing we’ve repeated to you is that water baptism is the method by which Christ’s atonement and the saving grace of God is applied to our souls. You keep saying that if water saves, then why did Christ die on the cross…but the water doesn’t save…it applies salvation to our souls.

Of course, we still disagree about what salvation means exactly (a topic for another thread), but can you understand that all we’re doing with water baptism is making the indwelling act of the Spirit occur at a precise and tangibly evident moment in time…whereas you cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the precise moment when the Spirit indwelt you, given the fact that you say it “happens” at the moment of belief…which is a very ambiguous and broad concept…based on feelings and emotions to trigger awareness in someone that the Spirit now indwells within them.

The indwelling occurs at water baptism, but water baptism requires true faith, and all of this is fueled by the atonement, which makes the grace of the indwelling possible.

So, like my post to you earlier in which you responded via PM, I still wonder why it is so critical for you to debate this particular topic, when we all agree that true faith is a prerequisite to indwelling. The water is merely there to effect the transference of the Spirit to our souls. At this point, you can still argue about infant baptism, but that is another issue, and can be explained as well.

Blessings to you, as always.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by SteveGC
Hi Ed,
You seem to frequently forget (I don’t think you ignore) that we believe that faith is a prerequisite to water baptism…if we do not have faith, then the water baptism has no effect on us.

Hi Steve, when you say faith is a prerequiste to ‘Water’ baptism. What do you mean by “faith”? Faith in the Catholic Church or who?

And another thing we’ve repeated to you is that water baptism is the method by which Christ’s atonement and the saving grace of God is applied to our souls.

There’s no Scripture reference to what you say here. How can there be when John says he baptizes with water for repentance. And in one case Mat3:7 he told the Pharisees produce fruit in keeping with repentance. Baptism in the N.T. would be like Circumcision in the O.T.

you keep saying that if water saves, then why did Christ die on the cross…but the water doesn’t save…it applies salvation to our souls.

Allow me to restate # 1262 of Catholic Catechism. “The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effets are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spitit.” Acts 2:38 is their Scripture reference. But when you read v41 it was those who BELIEVED the message that were baptized. What message? The gosple that Peter preached prior to v38. So it’s not the “water” baptism that purifies us from sin and regenerates, it’s the Gospel that does.

Of course, we still disagree about what salvation means exactly (a topic for another thread), but can you understand that all we’re doing with water baptism is making the indwelling act of the Spirit occur at a precise and tangibly evident moment in time.

There’s no Scripture reference that the Holy Spitit is infused by “water” baptism That’s what Nathan and I went around the wheel about.

…

whereas you cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the precise moment when the Spirit indwelt you, given the fact that you say it “happens” at the moment of belief…which is a very ambiguous and broad concept…based on feelings and emotions to trigger awareness in someone that the Spirit now indwells within them.

What you say here sounds good but there’s no Scripture reference of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.by "water baptism.-------I can call on the name of the Lord and be saved faster than one can be baptized. That’s the precise moment of salvation. Here’s my Scripture reference, John 1:12,“Yet to all who received him, to those who BELIEVED in His name, he gave the right to become children of God”.-----One can’t become a child of God without the Holy Spirit. -------It has nothing to do with feelings. John 3:16 says BELIEVE for eternal life.----- Eph 1:13, “And you also were included in Christ when you HEARD the WORD of TRUTH, the GOSPEL of your salvation. Having BELIEVED, you were marked in Him with a seal of the promised Holy Spirit.” The precise moment is upon BELIEF. ------Please Note, it says the gospel of your salvation and not the Baptism of your salvation.

but water baptism requires true faith, and all of this is fueled by the atonement, which makes the grace of the indwelling possible.

Eph 2:8-9 states, “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith---- and not from yourselves, it is a free gift of God v9 not by works, so that no one can boast.”----- It would not be a free gift if the only way that we could receive the Holy Spirit is by “water” baptrism which would then require us to do something.------This is so elementary, it’s hardly worth discussing. Cornelius received the Holy Spirit prior to "water: baptism, The thief on the cross got saved without “water” baptism, The jailer asked Paul how to get saved, He replied BELIEVE in Jesus.

So, like my post to you earlier in which you responded via PM, I still wonder why it is so critical for you to debate this particular topic, when we all agree that true faith is a prerequisite to indwelling. The water is merely there to effect the transference of the Spirit to our souls. At this point, you can still argue about infant baptism, but that is another issue, and can be explained as well.

Steve, I don’t think that there are many here that think that way. This is what #1263 of the Catholic Catechism states," By Baptism ALL SINS are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the greatest of which is seperation from God." ----- In otherwords, get “water” baptized, which makes one reborn then follow all the church rules, go to Mass, receive the Eucharist and then get purified in purgatory and hope to get to heaven. That’s not what the Bible teaches, 1 John 5:13, states,“I write these things to you who BELIEVE in the name of the Son of God so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.” That means we have to know for certain before we die that we have eternal life. Your church teaches otherwise. Blessings to you too Steve. ED O.

 

[ryanoneil]

John’s baptism was a ritual washing that was a token of repentence to prepair for the coming of the Messiah. It belonged in this Old Covenant catagory.

This is a symbol of the present time, in which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the worshiper in conscience but only in matters of food and drink and various ritual washings: regulations concerning the flesh, imposed until the time of the new order. (Heb 9:10)

John’s baptism was with water alone and was done as a sign of purification. But as was shown in Noah’s day, water alone cannot cleanse the soul. John himself said that Christian baptism would be different (New Covenant).

It would impart the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire. (Mt 3:11)

Jesus said it.

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Jn 3:5)

Peter said it.

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 will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. (Act 2:38)

Paul said it.

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:13)

It imparts the grace of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Bob4BVM]

I suppose it’s because of the Catholic teaching that the original sin is forgiven by “water” baptism and as a result there’s a born again experience. This is not true. The only forgiveness of sins is by the Blood of Jesus. I don’t question the need for “water” baptism, I question what is its purpose. Mat 3:11 John specifically states, “I baptize you with “water” for repentance” And that’s its purpose. ED O.

OK Ed, thank you for your answer, that helps me understand where you are coming from.
Ed, do you understand the concept of sacrament-it’s simple: Outward signs that effect (make present in reality) what they represent.
Jesus gave us the Sacraments because He knew we in the world need that kind of PRESENCE to help us in our relationship to God. As such, they are GIFTS from Him to us.
Though far from UNDERSTANDING each one–we never will this side of Heaven,— we are obediently following the example He set for us in these gifts. We come to Him with a simple & humble faith, like a child, because compared to Him who is all powerful, that is the only way we CAN approach Him.
Yes, I guess Sacraments are a hallmark of Catholic belief, because they are practiced as handed down to us by the Church since the time when Jesus gave them to us.
But does that in itself make them wrong ?

These different ways of talking about being “born again” describe effects of baptism, which Christ speaks of in John 3:5 as being “born of water and the Spirit.” In Greek, this phrase is, literally, “born of water and Spirit,” indicating one birth of water-and-Spirit, rather than “born of water and of the Spirit,” as though it meant two different births—one birth of water and one birth of the Spirit.
In the water-and-Spirit rebirth that takes place at baptism, the repentant sinner is transformed from a state of sin to the state of grace. Peter mentioned this transformation from sin to grace when he exhorted people to “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” (Acts 2:38).
The context of Jesus’ statements in John 3 makes it clear that he was referring to water baptism. Shortly before Jesus teaches Nicodemus about the necessity and regenerating effect of baptism, he himself was baptized by John the Baptist, and the circumstances are striking: Jesus goes down into the water, and as he is baptized, the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father speaks from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son” (cf. Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22; John 1:30–34). This scene gives us a graphic depiction of what happens at baptism: We are baptized with water, symbolizing our dying with Christ (Rom. 6:3) and our rising with Christ to the newness of life (Rom. 6:4–5); we receive the gift of sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27); and we are adopted as God’s sons (Rom. 8:15–17).

 

[Bob4BVM]

John’s baptism was a ritual washing that was a token of repentence to prepair for the coming of the Messiah. It belonged in this Old Covenant catagory.

This is a symbol of the present time, in which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the worshiper in conscience but only in matters of food and drink and various ritual washings: regulations concerning the flesh, imposed until the time of the new order. (Heb 9:10)

John’s baptism was with water alone and was done as a sign of purification. But as was shown in Noah’s day, water alone cannot cleanse the soul. John himself said that Christian baptism would be different (New Covenant).

It would impart the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire. (Mt 3:11)

Jesus said it.

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Jn 3:5)

Peter said it.

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 will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. (Act 2:38)

Paul said it.

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:13)

It imparts the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Good Ryan !
Ed, do you see the simple reality on the surface of all this ?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Bob4BVM and Ryanoiel,

Phillip went down to Samaria and preached the gospel. Acts 8:12, states, “But when they believed Phillip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. V13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Phillip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw. V14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. V15 when they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, v16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of Jesus. V17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”

Above it states all the people as well as Simon were “water” baptized but the Holy Spirit had NOT come upon them yet. Would you please explain what’s going on here? ED O.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2, please explain. Greater clarification needed here, you tend to give the impression of a Catholic doctrine of relativism and indifferentism, universalism and pelagianism. In summary, a Catholic Church which is meaningless (and this goes against your character.)
You were probably a little “chronologically challenged” (pushed for time) when you posted.

Not sure which part you want me to clarify so I will address both.

My quote: “The Catholic Church is the church that Christ established upon Peter. This you can verify if you go through history. But it does not mean that everyone else will be damned. The Catholic Church never ever taught this. “

It has been said that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and as much as this may rankle with those outside of her this is true.

When you come to think of it, the Bible that every protestant reveres (and rightly so) comes from the Catholic Church so their belief/apprehension of truth (though partial) comes from the Church.

Those who “get” to heaven will in the end affirm the truths that the Catholic Church teaches (yes, even the contested truths about Mary, salvation, purgatory, saints, etc). This may very well happen later (at death bed or after) but happen it will. So in the end every one becomes part of this universal Church that Christ founded upon Peter.

I suppose to put this in a nutshell: if you are saved then you are Catholic though you may not grasp that as yet.

My Quote: As a matter of fact, if you study and think about your theology in greater depth (assuming you believe in Calvinist predestination) you will find that Catholic theology is much more inclusive and allows for the possibility of everyone being saved.

And this is also true. Calvinist theology (almost) negates free will. With the absence of free will we end up being robots. In effect they are saying that God has pre-destined from the beginning (i.e. conception) who will and will not be saved.

If this is the case then god is a psychopath; a being who wills people into existence for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity. This also makes god unjust for without free will why should those who do evil be accountanble when they were programmed in this manner?
The Catholic church on the other hand affirms free will and grace and the interplay between the two is what Theologians have tried to nut out over the century.

In the end, if we posit a loving God (as is evident in the Bible) then we also must admit that He will do everything (as is evident in the Bible again) to bring in to His Kingdom the Lost Sheep.

Matthew 25: 31-46 (“whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me”) is also Christ’s way of telling us that some may not know Him now in person but know Him in their heart they will if they do this.

But all those outside of the church are also in the end drawn to the Church in one way or another by the Church herself because she is after all the Body of Christ and the Head is calling everyone into union with Him.

Thus the priest prays at mass, “look not on our sins but on the faith of your Church and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live and reign forever and ever.”

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by ryanoniel
John’s baptism was with water alone and was done as a sign of purification. But as was shown in Noah’s day, water alone cannot cleanse the soul. John himself said that Christian baptism would be different (New Covenant).

Jesus had already ascended to heaven, Phillip went down to Samaria and Christian “water” baptized the people but the Holy Spirit did NOT yet come upon them. WHY NOT if it’s supposed to be a Christian baptism?

It would impart the grace of the Holy Spirit

This statement is not in the Bible

I am baptizing you with water for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire. (Mt 3:11

This is the One baptism in the Holy Spirit that came upon Cornelius’ group Acts 10:44, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit that the people received when Peter and John laid hands on them Acts 8:17, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit that the disciples received when Paul laid hands on them Acts 19:6 with the evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit was the speaking in tongues. No “water” baptism here.

Jesus said it.

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Jn 3:5)

And one can become “born again”, be sealed with the Holy Spirit and become a child of God simply by BELIEVING in the name of Jesus. Without “water” baptism. John 1:12 and Eph 1:13. John 3:16 etc.

Peter said it.

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 will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. (Act 2:38)

He said little bit more v41, "Those who accepted his message were baptized. What message? The gospel that Peter preached prior to v 38.

Paul said it.

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:13)

Exactly, it’s the One baptism in the Holy Spirit, that I mentioned above. It has to be because Paul in Heb 6:2 speaks of baptisms (plural) John “water” baptism for repentance and Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit.

 

[adriancombe]

Jesus had already ascended to heaven, Phillip went down to Samaria and Christian “water” baptized the people but the Holy Spirit did NOT yet come upon them. WHY NOT if it’s supposed to be a Christian baptism?

Why do you assume they did not receive the Holy Spirit?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Adriancombe
Why do you assume they did not receive the Holy Spirit?

I’m not assuming anything. Start reading Acts 8 from v12 where they get “water” baptized and continue to read. In v16,it states, “because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus v17 Then Peter and John placed their on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” ED O.

 

[ryanoneil]

Jesus had already ascended to heaven, Phillip went down to Samaria and Christian “water” baptized the people but the Holy Spirit did NOT yet come upon them. WHY NOT if it’s supposed to be a Christian baptism?

It is talking about the Spirit not yet coming upon them in a visible and charismatic way through the laying of hands. By your own theology they should have recieved the Spirit in verse 12 when they believed. There is a sealing by the Spirit at baptism. A first installment.

This statement is not in the Bible

Yes it is. Peter is refering to the baptism of water and spirit.

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 will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. (Act 2:38)

This is the One baptism in the Holy Spirit that came upon Cornelius’ group Acts 10:44, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit that the people received when Peter and John laid hands on them Acts 8:17, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit that the disciples received when Paul laid hands on them Acts 19:6 with the evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit was the speaking in tongues. No “water” baptism here.

I will grant that Act 10:44 is unique. Cornelius believed in 10:2 but didn’t recieve the Spirit. Don’t you find that odd?

You are confusing baptism and the laying of hands in the other verses. Baptism and laying of hands happened at different times in Acts 8 and they happened one after the other in Acts 19.

And one can become “born again”, be sealed with the Holy Spirit and become a child of God simply by BELIEVING in the name of Jesus. Without “water” baptism. John 1:12 and Eph 1:13. John 3:16 etc.

Sure that is possible. All things are possible with God. It is also possible that some one can simply believe and not recieve the Holy Spirit.

He said little bit more v41, "Those who accepted his message were baptized. What message? The gospel that Peter preached prior to v 38.

That doesn’t refute what Peter says in verse 38. They will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit when they repent and get baptized.

Exactly, it’s the One baptism in the Holy Spirit, that I mentioned above. It has to be because Paul in Heb 6:2 speaks of baptisms (plural) John “water” baptism for repentance and Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit.

And Christian baptism is Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit. That is the usual form. There are exceptions, Cornelius being one of them. I will never deny that the gifts of the Holy Spirit come to us in many ways. If you get right down to it, we need the gift of the Holy Spirit before we believe in order to even move toward that. So don’t misunderstand me, incase you think I limit the Spirit to only Christian basptism. I don’t. All I’m saying is the Holy Spirit is definately attached to Christian baptism.

 

[ryanoneil]

If you want to understand this from the perspective of the Catechism follow this link. It is four paragraphs long.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a2.htm#1286

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Acts 2:38
‘But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost’

For the remission of sins:

• Do penance
• Be baptized
• In the name of Jesus Christ (although implied, no mention of the Trinity)

And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[ryanoneil]

Bob4BVM and Ryanoiel,

Above it states all the people as well as Simon were “water” baptized but the Holy Spirit had NOT come upon them yet. Would you please explain what’s going on here? ED O.

In the interpretive tradition of the Church there is a deeper conferral of the Spirit through the imposition of hands (which is linked to the sacrament of Confirmation). Confirmation follows Baptism and it is an integral part of Christian initiation. In this story, the deacon (Philip) can baptize, but it belongs to the the first century equivalent of bishop (Peter and John) to bestow a fuller measure of the Spirit on the baptized by the laying of hands.

In the case of Paul and Acts 19, he is the first century equivalent of Bishop so he gives the Ephesians proper Christian baptism and then immediately Confirms them.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Since we seem to be talking about baptism would it be wandering too far off OP to now introduce debate on the role of women as celebrants (in baptism)?