A
Anima_Christi
Guest
I’m debating a Protestant on the necessity of baptism for salvation. He brought up Acts 10:44-48 where Cornelius received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. How do I answer this?
- Status
V
Vi_Type
Guest
Your answer must be to submit to the complete authority of the Biblical text which says you recieve the Holy Spirit at conversion prior to baptism.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Anima Christi:
John 3:3-7.
Of course who are we to limit the action of God. God can act in any way He wishes. He can supply the grace of Baptism outside of the Sacrament and send the Holy Spirit as necesary. Christ did establish the ordinary means and necessity of Baptism in
John 3:3-7.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Hello Anima;
How does this verse argue against Baptism as necessary for salvation? Seems to me that Peter is quite adamant about making sure that all of the gentiles receive the sacrament of Baptism by water.
If your protestant friend is equating the descent of the HS upon the yet-to-be baptised gentiles with the negation of the necessity for baptism, then I would ask him to explain what exactly is he inferring from the text. Does your friend think that the Holy Spirit descending on these people evidences a “believers’ baptism” that is somehow sufficient. If that is so, then why does Peter immediately call for their baptism, and make a point out of not withholding it from them? If it is merely symbolic, why make such an issue - why not simply declare them to be members of the Church - the Body of Christ - at that moment, without baptism.
Also, take note of the fact that the text does not say that these persons have been “born again of the Holy Spirit” but only that they received the Holy Spirit - which is entirely consistent with the necessity for baptism. Jesus tells His disciples that one must be born of water and the Holy Spirit - i.e. baptism.
I think your friend’s interpretation of this passage reads far too much into the text. I would suggest that the passage describes a sign from the HS to Peter and the jews that indeed it is acceptable to bring gentiles into Christ’s Church. (That is the main point of the Chapter, after all.) It is not teaching on the sacrament of Baptism per se. The passage is focused on the universlity of Christ’s Church - and expressly noting that Baptism was not to be withheld from anyone - even the Gentiles!
To hold up this one passage (out of context IMHO) as biblical evidence that baptism was not necessary discounts many other portions of scripture that expressly recognize baptism as necessary for salvation, including - inter alia - the gospel of John 3:5:
the Gospel of Mark 16:16:
and Acts 2:37-38"
Your friend is cherry picking passages of scripture without considering all of Scripture - which clearly recognizes Baptism as as necessary.
-Peace
E
Elzee
Guest
I asked a question about this exact verse last week I believe - I don’t know how to link to threads, but if you search on my name and look for a thread I started with Acts10:44 in the name you’ll find some great responses. Good luck to you!
N
Nicene
Guest
Vi Type:
As well, you seem to have it backwards:
**Acts 2:38: 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.
Acts 8:12: But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13: Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
14: Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama’ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
15: who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit;
Acts 19:1: While Apol’los 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.
**
The normative means of salvation is to recieve baptism then conferring of the Holy Spirit. The only exception to this was when Peter was told to take the gospel to the gentiles and God gave him a sign. Notice after this incident it clearly shows them in scripture continuing as before.
Is it out of Gods pervue to repeat that incident? Nope, but Christ did give us the normative means of Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Do you believe Christ to be wrong in this?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
The authority is the church, according to the sacred scripture, or do you believe Jesus is wrong?
As well, you seem to have it backwards:
**Acts 2:38: 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.
Acts 8:12: But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13: Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
14: Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama’ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
15: who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit;
Acts 19:1: While Apol’los 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.
**
The normative means of salvation is to recieve baptism then conferring of the Holy Spirit. The only exception to this was when Peter was told to take the gospel to the gentiles and God gave him a sign. Notice after this incident it clearly shows them in scripture continuing as before.
Is it out of Gods pervue to repeat that incident? Nope, but Christ did give us the normative means of Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Do you believe Christ to be wrong in this?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
By the way, I did point out to the protestant that the passage said nothing about salvation while other scriptural passages closely connect salvation and remission of sins with baptism.
V
Vi_Type
Guest
I’m sorry let me clarify my statement.
The absolute authority for a Christian is not the Church, it is not even Scripture in that sense, but the absolute authority is God. That being, what God says in His Word has absolute authority over our lives.
God’s word plainly says that the people in Acts 10:44-48 believed and received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized.
W
whosebob
Guest
Vi Type:
How do you understand the following words of St. Paul?
Scripture Catholic
In Christ.
IC XC NIKA
JMJ + OBT
How do you understand the following words of St. Paul?
Another free on-line resource I’ve found helpful for learning more about how the Catholic Church interprets the Holy Bible is:
Scripture Catholic
In Christ.
IC XC NIKA
V
Vi_Type
Guest
The church is the “buttress of truth” as the ESV puts it. The church supports truth. That is not the same thing as saying the church establishes truth. Truth is subject to God, if it was subject to the church then truth would not exist prior to when Christ established that particular institution.
N
Nicene
Guest
Vi Type:
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
So you intentionlly ignore the rest of Gods words in scripture?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
V
Vi_Type
Guest
No I do not, and I do not understand how you came to that conclusion. Furthermore the Word of God is innerant, so there can not be a place in Scripture that says the opposite of what Luke stated in Acts 10:44-48.
N
Nicene
Guest
Vi Type:
**6: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. **
The church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth because God reveals it to the church, not the individual.
1 Tim 3:15: if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Paul also tells us that all scripture is profitable for instruction then Peter tells us that individuals will twist scripture to their own destruction. Why? Because it is the church to whom God reveals the truth.
Is this evident in practice? Yep, without trying to be offensive, one verse has been taken and the rest of what God has revealed ignored. God didn’t waste his time giving us scripture so we could ignore some of it.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
This would be incorrect, the truth isn’t subject to God, God/Christ is the truth:
**6: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. **
The church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth because God reveals it to the church, not the individual.
1 Tim 3:15: if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Paul also tells us that all scripture is profitable for instruction then Peter tells us that individuals will twist scripture to their own destruction. Why? Because it is the church to whom God reveals the truth.
Is this evident in practice? Yep, without trying to be offensive, one verse has been taken and the rest of what God has revealed ignored. God didn’t waste his time giving us scripture so we could ignore some of it.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
V
Vi_Type
Guest
Furthermore Nicene,
Acts 2:38;9:1-6 have nothing to do with the specific time of when we recieve the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38 is not specific in the fact that it does not say whether it is after both repentance and baptism we recieve the Spirit or whether it is in between.
In Acts 9:1-6, Paul exposes those so called “believers” to just be immitaters. The disciples he found were posing as Christians because they believed getting baptized by John would save them. So Paul asks then if they have the Spirit in order to expose them, and tell them the truth that is “to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”
The same applies to Acts 8:14-17, it does not tell us specifically when we recieve the Holy Spirit, but this text is not as easily harmanized as the others. You see since Acts 10:44-48 tells us that some recieved the Spirit upon faith without yet being baptized, and Acts 8:14-17 tells us that some believers did not have the Spirit upon faith but only after the laying of hands by the Apostles did they recieve the Spirit. The only conclusion we can make is that we can not recieve the Spirit prior to faith, but we can prior to baptizism.
A better text to look at would be Eph 1:13b-14
“Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.”
In Christ,
Yuriy
Acts 2:38;9:1-6 have nothing to do with the specific time of when we recieve the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38 is not specific in the fact that it does not say whether it is after both repentance and baptism we recieve the Spirit or whether it is in between.
In Acts 9:1-6, Paul exposes those so called “believers” to just be immitaters. The disciples he found were posing as Christians because they believed getting baptized by John would save them. So Paul asks then if they have the Spirit in order to expose them, and tell them the truth that is “to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”
The same applies to Acts 8:14-17, it does not tell us specifically when we recieve the Holy Spirit, but this text is not as easily harmanized as the others. You see since Acts 10:44-48 tells us that some recieved the Spirit upon faith without yet being baptized, and Acts 8:14-17 tells us that some believers did not have the Spirit upon faith but only after the laying of hands by the Apostles did they recieve the Spirit. The only conclusion we can make is that we can not recieve the Spirit prior to faith, but we can prior to baptizism.
A better text to look at would be Eph 1:13b-14
“Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.”
In Christ,
Yuriy
N
Nicene
Guest
Vi Type:
You do realize that Ephesians is talking about the seal of baptism right?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
No offense but the words are pretty plain in Acts. It’s hard to get around that as hard as you are trying.
You do realize that Ephesians is talking about the seal of baptism right?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
W
whosebob
Guest
Vi Type:
Generally speaking, Catholic theology and interpretation of Sacred Scripture distinguishes between the “charismatic gifts” (e.g. tongues, healing, and others), actual grace, and sanctifying grace; the last being inseperable from the Catholic understanding of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the justified soul.
According to Catholic teaching, a person who is not in a “state of (sanctifying) grace” may still, according to God’s will and favor, experience/exhibit one or more of the charismatic gifts. And a justified person – one in whose soul dwells the Holy Spirit, and so the Blessed Trinity – may or may not experience/exhibit the charismatic gifts.
So … a Catholic reading of Acts 10:44-48 could (there are other possibilities) understand the Gentiles in question to have experienced the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit prior to their Baptism; the gift of sanctifying grace – the reception of the Gift Himself, the Holy Spirit – would be received shortly afterwards in Baptism at the command of Peter.
See: Charismata and CCC #2003
In Christ.
IC XC NIKA
JMJ + OBT
Generally speaking, Catholic theology and interpretation of Sacred Scripture distinguishes between the “charismatic gifts” (e.g. tongues, healing, and others), actual grace, and sanctifying grace; the last being inseperable from the Catholic understanding of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the justified soul.
According to Catholic teaching, a person who is not in a “state of (sanctifying) grace” may still, according to God’s will and favor, experience/exhibit one or more of the charismatic gifts. And a justified person – one in whose soul dwells the Holy Spirit, and so the Blessed Trinity – may or may not experience/exhibit the charismatic gifts.
So … a Catholic reading of Acts 10:44-48 could (there are other possibilities) understand the Gentiles in question to have experienced the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit prior to their Baptism; the gift of sanctifying grace – the reception of the Gift Himself, the Holy Spirit – would be received shortly afterwards in Baptism at the command of Peter.
See: Charismata and CCC #2003
In Christ.
IC XC NIKA
V
Vi_Type
Guest
Saying God is the truth and truth is subject to God is the same thing. Truth is subjective to God because God is truth.
Are you claiming that God does not reveal truth to individual, but only to the institution of the Church? So I can not know the truth of God without the Church? Poor poor people of the Old Testament.
When you can prove this by showing some passage that I have ignored, I would be delighted and would repent. Until then this is a straw man and boy is it burning high.
In Christ,
Yuriy
V
Vi_Type
Guest
Then the Catholic reading of Acts 10:44-48 would be entirely wrong, because the Gentiles in question did not just experience the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the “Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” and believed. So the Gentiles did recieve the Holy Spirit and not just the gifts.
In Christ,
Yuriy
(It’s getting late, so I must get to bed. Good night.)
W
whosebob
Guest
Vi Type:
Vi Type, it doesn’t directly address your question-challenge, but you might find the following article to be of great interest:
The Individualist Jesus Is a Fantasy
Pope Benedict XVI
March 15, 2006
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
IC XC NIKA
JMJ + OBT
Vi Type, it doesn’t directly address your question-challenge, but you might find the following article to be of great interest:
The Individualist Jesus Is a Fantasy
Pope Benedict XVI
March 15, 2006
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
IC XC NIKA
W
whosebob
Guest
Vi Type:
I slightly edited my post, indicating that this isn’t the only possible Catholic interpretation, though I still stand by it.
Welcome, again, to this rowdy little arena!
In Christ.
IC XC NIKA
JMJ + OBT
I slightly edited my post, indicating that this isn’t the only possible Catholic interpretation, though I still stand by it.
Have a good night’s sleep.
Welcome, again, to this rowdy little arena!
In Christ.
IC XC NIKA
- Status