I've hit a BIG Baptism stumbling block with a Baptist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elzee

Guest
Hello everyone, I tried to get an answer from the Apologist forum but they haven’t used my question (it was only a couple days ago but I need an answer fairly quickly…)

I’m involved in my first serious apologetics discussion with someone who has seriously studied the bible for years. It has been going very well - no arguments and actually very enjoyable.

Our discussion is centered on Baptism. He recently brought up Acts 10:44-48 and I told him I would have to look into this passage more. Specifically verse 47: *“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?.”
*
He said these verses, and particularly verse 47, show that Peter and others received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism - therefore the Holy Spirit does not come to dwell in us as a result of baptism. He does admit, though, that other verses seem to link belief, repentance, and baptism very closely and people could get confused - but this verse should clear up any of that confusion.

I remember asking a similar question last year on this forum, and someone said that in the early Church, the Holy Spirit was poured out on many in an ‘un-normative’ manner to help spread God’s message. I presented this as a possible explanation, but he said there is nothing in Scripture to support that rationalization for this particular passage. *

Can anyone help me explain this verse? Thank you!!
*
 
Isn’t the reason for Baptism the removal of the stain of original sin etc, ?

1279 The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.
 
Eireann said:
Isn’t the reason for Baptism the removal of the stain of original sin etc, ?

1279 The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.
Click to expand...
Am I wrong in thinking we receive the Holy Spirit thru our Confirmation? I thought that’s what we were taught, but to be honest, I haven’t really thought that far back…just appreciated what I’ve got:o
 
The confusion lies in the matter of what it means to receive the Holy Spirit. We receive the Holy Spirit in a lot of ways, a lot of times. Without the Holy Spirit we could not repent or desire Baptism – is that the same thing as receiving the Holy Spirit as it is received through Baptism.

So your friend is right (and so is the Acts of the Apostles) that those believers did receive the Holy Spirit “as we did” in before Baptism. Does that mean that the particular gift of Baptismal grace – the removal of original sin – happened to them at that time? Can we know? We cannot because God is not bound by his own sacraments, and may choose to work outside of them, if it be his will. What we CAN know is that Our Lord requires Baptism, and that without it we do not have the assurance that we have been freed from the stain of Original Sin and sealed for Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Our Lord would not have us play games with ceremonies. Truly, the ceremonies of our faith, in faith, must be as Real and as effective as he is.
 
When we are baptized the life of the Trinity lives within us. This would include the Holy Spirit. So yes, the Holy Spirit is there but since most Catholics are baptized as infants, they cannot formally profess their faith (their parents do it for them). Confirmation is when the young adult can make a public profession to accept the gift of the Holy Spirit which was initially given to him/her at baptism. That is how I’ve always understood it anyway. If I"m mistaken, I’m sure someone will correct me.

I think it is important to tell your friend that even though Jesus instituted the sacraments…meaning they come from God - that that doesn’t mean that God is bound by them. We as his creatures are bound by his Sacraments, but He Himself is not bound by the Sacraments. In other words…if God wants to send his Holy Spirit into the heart of someone who isn’t baptized…then He surely has the authority to do so. We, on the other hand, cannot manipulate the sacraments to make them mean what we want them to mean…to fit our own agenda.

Hope that helps. Ref: CCC1257
 
Hebrews 6:2 (King James Version)

Of the doctrine of** baptisms**, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Does this mean that there is more than one kind of baptism?

indwelling of Holy Spirit

Baptism of Holy Spirit to recieve spiritual gifts

Water Baptism
Thus, there are three kinds of Baptism:
Click to expand...
Baptism of Water, which alone is a sacrament
Baptism of Desire
Baptism of Blood.
Click to expand...
circleofprayer.com/baptism.html

Did the gentiles meet the definition of one of the baptisms before water baptism?
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
Hebrews 6:2 (King James Version)

Of the doctrine of** baptisms**, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Does this mean that there is more than one kind of baptism?

indwelling of Holy Spirit

Baptism of Holy Spirit to recieve spiritual gifts

Water Baptism

circleofprayer.com/baptism.html

Did the gentiles meet the definition of one of the baptisms before water baptism?
Click to expand...
I think you’re on the right track. But I would hesitate to ascribe to the New Testament authors a full-blown understanding of these distinctions. If they did, the writing would have been more clear. That’s why we have the Magisterium. When we scratch our heads over these ambiguities in Scripture, we entrust the question to the Holy Spirit (there he IS again!) working through the Church.
 
Elzee said:
…He said these verses, and particularly verse 47, show that Peter and others received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism - therefore the Holy Spirit does not come to dwell in us as a result of baptism. He does admit, though, that other verses seem to link belief, repentance, and baptism very closely and people could get confused - but this verse should clear up any of that confusion…
Click to expand...
Ok, I’ll bite…

Jesus, in John 3:5, tells us, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”

Also, tt seems pretty clear to me that Baptism has pretty much always (i.e. from the very first Pentecost) been connected with the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Acts 2:38 tells us, “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.’”
 
“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?.”
Click to expand...
I don’t know the surrounding verses, so I can’t ellaborate very much, but it seems to me that the question is “Who has recieved the Holy Spirit, as we have (in other words other priests or Bishops) and can withold the water of baptism?” Maybe asking if a priest or something knows why they shouldn’t be baptised? Or is it asking for a priest to baptise someone? (Witholding meaning “hold the water up, to then pour down on them” )

Not well thought out, but I’m in a rush. God Bless!
 
I would understand “received the Holy Spirit even as we have” as meaning “have heard the call of God even as we have.”

Does this Baptist believe he was saved when he heard the call of God, or when he said “yes” to that call? For both involved “receiving the Holy Spirit”.
 
leaner said:
Am I wrong in thinking we receive the Holy Spirit thru our Confirmation? I thought that’s what we were taught, but to be honest, I haven’t really thought that far back…just appreciated what I’ve got:o
Click to expand...
I’m no expert, 🙂 but … I wouldn’t say your wrong.

CCC 1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the “sacraments of Christian initiation,” whose unity must be safeguarded.** It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace**.89 **For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church **and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed."90

1288 "From that time on the apostles, in fulfillment of Christ’s will, imparted to the newly baptized by the laying on of hands the gift of the Spirit that completes the grace of Baptism. For this reason in the Letter to the Hebrews the doctrine concerning Baptism and the laying on of hands is listed among the first elements of Christian instruction. The imposition of hands is rightly recognized by the Catholic tradition as the origin of the sacrament of Confirmation, which in a certain way perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church."99

Anyway I don’t think a baby receives any of these gifts at Baptism… 1831 The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. They belong in their fullness to Christ, Son of David. They complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.

My own thoughts… well we are made clean and Spiritually marked by the Holy Spirit, but only in Confirmation do we receive the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism to me is a way of God marking us out as His Children, (being sealed) with a mark that cannot be erased.
 
VociMike said:
I would understand “received the Holy Spirit even as we have” as meaning “have heard the call of God even as we have.”
Click to expand...
True, as it is written no-one can say Jesus is Lord except the Holy Spirit reveal it to them.

First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, saith Anathema to Jesus. And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost.
 
Acts 10
39"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues** and praising God.

Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

There are two baptisms being discussed in this passage. One is Baptism with Water where according to catholic doctrine as I understand it one is INDWELLED with the Holy Spirit. The Other is Baptism with the Holy Spirit were one is filled or empowered by the Holy Spirit. The prophets of the OT in some protestant theology were filled with the spirit, but not were indwelled.

Based on Matthew 7:22-24 it is possible for one to be filled with the Spirit and not be born again.

Matthew 7:22-23 (New International Version)

22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

The whole point is, being filled with the spirit is not salvation, it is simply God working in one’s life in a special way.

To pharaphase Peter in Acts 10, “we can see that God is at work among these gentiles by pouring out his Holy Spirit on them. Therefore, there is no reason to withhold water baptism from them because we now know that God has opened salvation to them too.”

In the context of Acts, Peter had the vision on the roof where animals came down in the sheet. The message was basically, there is nobody “unclean” to God.

Ask your baptist freind, where it says that being filled with the Holy Spirit is equal to being saved?

As a leading question, ask him if those in the old testament were indwelt with the Holy Spirit or is that only a new testament event?

Some protestants assume that being filled with the spirit is equal to salvation. Matthew 7:22-23 demonstrates that it is possible to do miracles in Jesus’ name and not be saved.

In fact, there were unsaved Jews in Acts that casted out demons in Jesus name.

Acts 19

13Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” 14Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15**(One day)** the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” 16Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.

It is assumed that being “filled with the Spirit” follows salvation. But, in Acts 10 we have a case where gentiles are filled with the spirit before water baptism.**
 
Elzee said:
Hello everyone, I tried to get an answer from the Apologist forum but they haven’t used my question (it was only a couple days ago but I need an answer fairly quickly…)

I’m involved in my first serious apologetics discussion with someone who has seriously studied the bible for years. It has been going very well - no arguments and actually very enjoyable.

Our discussion is centered on Baptism. He recently brought up Acts 10:44-48 and I told him I would have to look into this passage more. Specifically verse 47: *“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?.”
*

Well i am a typical Protestant who have not go for my water baptism yet, but my church members have laid hands and pray for me for the baptism of Holy Spirit and through this i received my tongue. Sometime understand too much theology will confuse us because one needs tremendous amount of wisdom and knowledge to dissolve God’s teaching, i rather open my heart and let God work on me, because even with all those theology backup you can’t received the fullness of God if one does not open his/her to accept Jesus. Come on, God is a powerfuk God he can move anyone. It does not means we have to go for water baptism then we have Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Salvation starts when non- believers response to alter calls, but convent relationship with Jesus is still a must for all Christ believers (water baptism) for its washes away all our sins and becoming a full fledge Christian. Once we are move by faith and with the power of Holy Spirit you can simply lay hands to heal others non believers. That is how miracle of Holy Spirit works, we are his instructment to win and help the lost soul…

He said these verses, and particularly verse 47, show that Peter and others received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism - therefore the Holy Spirit does not come to dwell in us as a result of baptism. He does admit, though, that other verses seem to link belief, repentance, and baptism very closely and people could get confused - but this verse should clear up any of that confusion.

I remember asking a similar question last year on this forum, and someone said that in the early Church, the Holy Spirit was poured out on many in an ‘un-normative’ manner to help spread God’s message. I presented this as a possible explanation, but he said there is nothing in Scripture to support that rationalization for this particular passage. *

Can anyone help me explain this verse? Thank you!!
*
Click to expand...
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
Ask your baptist freind, where it says that being filled with the Holy Spirit is equal to being saved?

As a leading question, ask him if those in the old testament were indwelt with the Holy Spirit or is that only a new testament event?

Some protestants assume that being filled with the spirit is equal to salvation. Matthew 7:22-23 demonstrates that it is possible to do miracles in Jesus’ name and not be saved.

In fact, there were unsaved Jews in Acts that casted out demons in Jesus name.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your two questions…canyou help me out a little? Sorry! :o
 
Elzee said:
Hello everyone, I tried to get an answer from the Apologist forum but they haven’t used my question (it was only a couple days ago but I need an answer fairly quickly…)

I’m involved in my first serious apologetics discussion with someone who has seriously studied the bible for years. It has been going very well - no arguments and actually very enjoyable.

Our discussion is centered on Baptism. He recently brought up Acts 10:44-48 and I told him I would have to look into this passage more. Specifically verse 47: “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?.”

He said these verses, and particularly verse 47, show that Peter and others received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism - therefore the Holy Spirit does not come to dwell in us as a result of baptism. He does admit, though, that other verses seem to link belief, repentance, and baptism very closely and people could get confused - but this verse should clear up any of that confusion.

I remember asking a similar question last year on this forum, and someone said that in the early Church, the Holy Spirit was poured out on many in an ‘un-normative’ manner to help spread God’s message. I presented this as a possible explanation, but he said there is nothing in Scripture to support that rationalization for this particular passage.

Can anyone help me explain this verse? Thank you!!
Click to expand...
Hello Elzee,

Do you not think that Moses, David, Ezekiel and the rest of Old Testament unbaptized biblical writers were not inspired by the Holy Spirit?
 
Steven_Merten said:
Hello Elzee,

Do you not think that Moses, David, Ezekiel and the rest of Old Testament unbaptized biblical writers were not inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
Yes, and so does my friend. In fact, my guess is he would say that just helps prove his point that the Holy Spirit doesn’t work through the water of baptism. It’s only God’s grace and our faith that results in us being filled with the Holy Spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top