Debating Baptism

[brb3]

*Acts 8:9 A man named Simon used to practice magic in the city and astounded the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great. 10 All of them, from the least to the greatest, paid attention to him, saying, “This man is the ‘Power of God’ that is called ‘Great.’” 11 They paid attention to him because he had astounded them by his magic for a long time, 12 but once they began to believe Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, men and women alike were baptized. 13 Even Simon himself believed and, after being baptized, became devoted to Philip; and when he saw the signs and mighty deeds that were occurring, he was astounded.

14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, 16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was conferred by the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me this power too, so that anyone upon whom I lay my hands may receive the holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your money perish with you, because you thought that you could buy the gift of God with money. 21 You have no share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness of yours and pray to the Lord that, if possible, your intention may be forgiven. 23 For I see that you are filled with bitter gall and are in the bonds of iniquity.” 24 Simon said in reply, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.” 25 So when they had testified and proclaimed the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem and preached the good news to many Samaritan villages.*

Nope. Look again. They were validly baptized by Philip, who was a deacon. They had the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace, but they did not have the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Those gifts of the Holy Spirit came upon them when the bishops (Peter and John) conferred upon them the sacrament of Confirmation. (Philip a deacon could not confer this sacrament on them.)

Yes, this passage intrigues me. Perhaps u can answer me this.
Was Philip a deacon …or the Apostle Philip ? Support your answer, so I can be sure u have answered correctly!
ONCE WE ESTABLISH THIS, if we can, …then we can talk more about Simon’s receipt of HS or not …

 

[ahs]

SAY WHAT ??? WATER NOT IMPORTANT!!

Yes, normatively it is. Unless, one’s situation is unique & no time allows… like thief on cross.
Thats the Baptism by Blood type !!

I hope u were saying its some Protestants who claim water Baptism is not necessary

I think he was saying that water was not important for Paul to emphasize in that particular epistle to the Corinthians because Paul was not teaching abotu Baptism…rather he was teaching about the link between the members of the Church. Not that water is not important for Baptism…but that in this particular chapter of Paul’s letter, water was not important to mention because he was not teaching about Baptism.

I see what you are saying and I hope you do not think I’m saying, contrary to the very passage I quoted, that water is by its own nature what saves. That’s not what I said and I don’t think that’s what OP meant. The objectionable position is that water baptism is a meaningless formality because although the the “putting away of the filth of the flesh” does not save, **baptism by water is the normal channel by which God has chosen to impart his grace which does save **(Jn 3:5).

YES! It isnot that water, in and of itself, has any special salvific properties. But water Baptism is the normal or ordinary means by which Christ chose to send the Holy Spirit. Certainly there are extra-ordinary means…such as the theif on the cross…but even Christ Himself accepted water Baptism before the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, descended to Him. (Matt 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22; ) Christ has led us by example as to what we are to do.

 

[fred_conty]

ahs,
this is the line I was replying to, “what is being argued…namely that because Paul (if Paul indeed) did not mean the “water ritual” in every instance where he speaks of Baptism, that the “water ritual” is therefore not necessary.”

And you did get it. And Corinthians is what is used.

 

[Simka]

They were validly baptized by Philip, who was a deacon. They had the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace, but they did not have the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think this thread was intended to discuss this difference. Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace is what Peter promised (Acts 2:38) and Paul declared to be the uniquely identifying characteristic of all baptized believers.

If you are a baptized believer (or the baptized child of a believing parent) you have been brought into a covenant relationship with Jesus. To receive the Holy Spirit, the believing is as important as the baptism.

 

[zz912]

Yes, this passage intrigues me. Perhaps u can answer me this.
Was Philip a deacon …or the Apostle Philip ? Support your answer, so I can be sure u have answered correctly!
ONCE WE ESTABLISH THIS, if we can, …then we can talk more about Simon’s receipt of HS or not …

I’m unaware of anyone who believes it to be the Apostle Philip. It is unanimous that it is the Deacon Philip. Just look to the passages of Acts which precedes the ones I cited:

*1 Now Saul was consenting to his execution. **On that day, there broke out a severe persecution of the church in Jerusalem, and all were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. **2 Devout men buried Stephen and made a loud lament over him. 3 Saul, meanwhile, was trying to destroy the church; entering house after house and dragging out men and women, he handed them over for imprisonment.

4 Now those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. 5 Thus Philip went down to [the] city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them. 6 With one accord, the crowds paid attention to what was said by Philip when they heard it and saw the signs he was doing. 7 For unclean spirits, crying out in a loud voice, came out of many possessed people, and many paralyzed and crippled people were cured. 8 There was great joy in that city*.

Philip is one of those who was scattered, and the Apostles were not scattered.

 

[ahs]

I’m unaware of anyone who believes it to be the Apostle Philip. It is unanimous that it is the Deacon Philip. Just look to the passages of Acts which precedes the ones I cited:

*1 Now Saul was consenting to his execution. **On that day, there broke out a severe persecution of the church in Jerusalem, and all were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. ***2 Devout men buried Stephen and made a loud lament over him. 3 Saul, meanwhile, was trying to destroy the church; entering house after house and dragging out men and women, he handed them over for imprisonment.

4 Now those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. 5 Thus Philip went down to [the] city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them. 6 With one accord, the crowds paid attention to what was said by Philip when they heard it and saw the signs he was doing. 7 For unclean spirits, crying out in a loud voice, came out of many possessed people, and many paralyzed and crippled people were cured. 8 There was great joy in that city.

Philip is one of those who was scattered, and the Apostles were not scattered.

This has been my understanding as well, that this is the Philip who is introduced to us in Acts 6 (verses 1-6) .

 

[brb3]

I’m unaware of anyone who believes it to be the Apostle Philip. It is unanimous that it is the Deacon Philip. Just look to the passages of Acts which precedes the ones I cited:

*1 Now Saul was consenting to his execution. **On that day, there broke out a severe persecution of the church in Jerusalem, and all were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. ***2 Devout men buried Stephen and made a loud lament over him. 3 Saul, meanwhile, was trying to destroy the church; entering house after house and dragging out men and women, he handed them over for imprisonment.

4 Now those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. 5 Thus Philip went down to [the] city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them. 6 With one accord, the crowds paid attention to what was said by Philip when they heard it and saw the signs he was doing. 7 For unclean spirits, crying out in a loud voice, came out of many possessed people, and many paralyzed and crippled people were cured. 8 There was great joy in that city.

Philip is one of those who was scattered, and the Apostles were not scattered.

Very good, …

but scripture only says the Apostles remained ( in Jerusalem ) to honor & bury Stephen ( a newly made Deacon ). So, we know the Apostles were making deacons at this early date, to assist with the social Church work needs, …to allow the APOSTLES to do the evangelization duties.

But then, why would Deacon Philip be acting in the Primary role of Apostles ?
He wasn’t ordained for it !!

 

[ahs]

Very good, …

but scripture only says the Apostles remained ( in Jerusalem ) to honor & bury Stephen ( a newly made Deacon ). So, we know the Apostles were making deacons at this early date, to assist with the social Church work needs, …to allow the APOSTLES to do the evangelization duties.

But then, why would Deacon Philip be acting in the Primary role of Apostles ?
He wasn’t ordained for it !!

Hi, I’m not sayign I disagree with you mina point…but I want to point out that he WAS ordained. Read Acts 6 :1-6. He was specifically ordained by the laying on of hands.

 

[zz912]

Very good, …

but scripture only says the Apostles remained ( in Jerusalem ) to honor & bury Stephen ( a newly made Deacon ). So, we know the Apostles were making deacons at this early date, to assist with the social Church work needs, …to allow the APOSTLES to do the evangelization duties.

But then, why would Deacon Philip be acting in the Primary role of Apostles ?
He wasn’t ordained for it !!

Look again at the posted Scripture. Acts says that everyone was scattered, except the Apostles. Then it mentions those that were scattered again, and starts the next sentence speaking about how Philip went evangelizing. There is simply no reason to believe this is NOT the Deacon Philip, and I know of no one who believes it is anyone but the Deacon.

 

[guanophore]

This is the kind of over-generalization that drove the Reformation!

NOT!!

In fact, if the Church TEaching that the Sacraments confer what they signify, I daresay the scandals around the "selling’ of indulgences would never have occurred.

 You probably want to confine your statement to the subject of baptism (which is debate enough) but if you want to include all the sacraments, then you have to account for how simply partaking of the bread and wine in the Eucharist conveys eternal life ...

Well, Catholics and Orthodox do not have to “account” for such a thing because we know that once the bread and wine are consecrated, they BECOME the Body and Blood.

Other Christians who have rejected the real presence, including most Anglicans, DO have to account fo this

1 Cor 11:27-31

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

How can that which is not Really Present cause anyone to answer for anything? How can people get sick because they denied that which never existed?

Christians who reject the doctrine of the Real Presence have to do all kinds of twists and spins to make some sense out of these scriptures.

the inward and spiritual grace of which this sacrament is the outward and visible sign … especially if you consider Paul’s warning to the Corinthians that partaking may actually make some guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[guanophore]

As a Protestant, I wonder what you imply by that criticism. There is an obvious differentiation between the outward and visible sign of the sacrament (the application of water) and the inward and spiritual grace which it signifies. When Paul teaches the Corinthians about being baptized into Christ (by the Holy Spirit) he makes no reference to the sacrament, so there is no use, no place, and no purpose for water in his message.

Paul is writing for a specific situation, to educate the faithful on a particular topic. This passage was never intended to be a full compendium on baptism.

What is meant by the criticism is exactly what you are doing here, trying to take one passage, and use it to define a doctrine (one which is heretical, by the way) without reconciling this passage to others which refere to baptism.

Not only do we know he is making reference to the sacrament, it is not valid to make an arguement from the absence of evidence. The fact that this passage does not reference water has no bearing on the fact that the Apostle is talking about water baptism.

The method you are using, ripping texts apart from context, is a common misuse of the Scriptures.

Still, I have never heard any Protestant suggest that the sacrament of baptism can be conducted without water.

Well, stick around!

There are people who believe baptism has nothing to do with water.

But it is a commonly understood principle that one's salvation depends not on the outward sign, but on the inward grace.

One can receive the Holy Spirit without being baptized with water, and one can be baptized with water without receiving the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but the Apostles taught that they were joined from the time Jesus entered the water of baptism. The situations you describe are exceptions to the norm.

 

[guanophore]

In your statement you acknowledge that there are circumstances possible in which people may partake of the bread and wine without receiving God’s grace signified by the sacrament. That’s all I said, and you apparently agree with me. Simply participating in the ceremony is no guarantee that God will force anyone to accept His grace.

This is a heresy that has been addressed by the Church in many ages.

A persons’ failure to benefit from the sacrament does not invalidate the sacrament. God pours out His grace through them, but if one approaches in an unworthy manner, then one will “eat and drink condemnation upon himself” because they have committed a sacrilege.

A person condemning themselves does not invalidate the sacrament for anyone but themselves.

No, we do not agree. A person can fail to receive the grace that is contained in the sacrament, but that does not make it invalid.

And we do not agree that there is any bread or wine present after the consecration. All that remains is the Body and Blood of the Lord under the appearances of the elements.

 

[Simka]

No, we do not agree. A person can fail to receive the grace that is contained in the sacrament, but that does not make it invalid.

My position, plain and simple, is that one may receive the sacrament without receiving the grace signified by that sacrament. Surely that is what you have just said !!! What part of this statement do you disagree with? Or is it just that the statement is made by a Protestant, so it must be wrong … ???

I use the word “signified”, not “contained” or “promised” because I am governed by the definition of a sacrament, which is “an outward and visible sign …”. What a sign does is “signify”, or “symbolize”, or “represent” …

I have never suggested that there are any circumstances in which a sacrament may be made “invalid” because I have no idea what anyone might mean by an invalidated sacrament. Those are your words, not mine.

 

[Simka]

The situations you describe are exceptions to the norm.

So we agree, that exceptions are possible … ???

 

[guanophore]

Finally! Yes, there are conditions, beyond a mere ceremonial participation in the outward and visible sign. Sometimes those presumptions are satisfied, and the inward and spiritual grace is imparted.

But sometimes they are not, and in those situations, God’s grace is not imparted, despite the performance of the ceremonial act.

Many people, however, forget about the presumptions, the conditional aspects of the sacraments. They will argue that all I have to do is attend a Eucharist service, and whatever my heart attitude towards it or towards God, my participation alone – simply eating the bread and drinking the wine – guarantees I will receive the eternal life signified by that sacrament.

No further need to accept Christ into my life, no need to do anything else, ever.

Likewise, they will argue that simply participating in a baptism ceremony – whatever my heart attitude towards it or towards God, and whether or not I am repentant – my sins become irrelevant, my participation alone guarantees me the ‘gift’ of God’s Holy Spirit, whether I want it or not.

Yes this is a gross departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.