Question about Acts 8

[edjco]

Last night I came across a passage that “hit” me. It hit me because I don’t recall ever hearing this passage quoted in apologetics. Here it is:

Acts 8:14-17Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.

The way I read this, a person who is “only baptized” has not received the Holy Spirit. This then means that there is a huge problem for those who believe that the Holy Spirit guides each individual in their private interpretation of Scripture.

It also makes a pretty compelling argument for the priesthood where it mentions the laying on of hands as a way for someone to receive the Holy Spirit.

Am I interpreting this correctly, or am I all wet? I would also appreciate the Protestant take on this passage.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[MarcoPolo]

Baptism does impart the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). However, the sacrament of the “Holy Spirit” is confirmation, which is what Acts 8 is referencing. See Catechism #1315 (and preceding paragraphs).

In a sense, any Christian could derive a fair interpretation of Scripture. You or I could too. However, we do not possess the Spirit’s guarantee of infallible interpretation when done so Magisterially. Thus, we of ourselves and Protestants are prone to great error when interpreting Scripture.

 

[puzzleannie]

well it is one of the verses often cited for support of the sacrament of confirmation as an essential completion of baptism

 

[edjco]

Oh, I never thought of it in terms of Confirmation. I wonder then of the Protestant take on this passage. Thanks so much to you both!

 

[Odell]

Maybe they were being baptized in the name of Jesus and not the trinity formula father son holy spirit. If that’s the case it was not a valid baptism. Maybe this is why they needed some authority so they would have correct teaching? Any thoughts?

 

[edjco]

Baptism does impart the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). However, the sacrament of the “Holy Spirit” is confirmation, which is what Acts 8 is referencing. See Catechism #1315 (and preceding paragraphs).

In a sense, any Christian could derive a fair interpretation of Scripture. You or I could too. However, we do not possess the Spirit’s guarantee of infallible interpretation when done so Magisterially. Thus, we of ourselves and Protestants are prone to great error when interpreting Scripture.

I agree with that. I was mainly refering to, as you said, infallible interpretation. I also see where those baptized receive the “gift of the Holy Spirit”, but is something else talked about in Acts 8? In other words, does the laying on of hands give something “more” from the Holy Spirit?

If so, then wouldn’t it follow that those who have not had hands laid upon them not posess this gift?

 

[garysibio]

Maybe they were being baptized in the name of Jesus and not the trinity formula father son holy spirit. If that’s the case it was not a valid baptism. Maybe this is why they needed some authority so they would have correct teaching? Any thoughts?

I doubt that the baptism would have been considered invalid because I don’t think the Church had gotten around to establishing the rules for that at this point. Phillip was a deacon in good standing. Why would he baptize them in an invalid manner?

 

[garysibio]

Oh, I never thought of it in terms of Confirmation. I wonder then of the Protestant take on this passage. Thanks so much to you both!

Depends on whether they are Pentecostal in their theology or not. Non-Pentecostals tend to believe that, when you are born again, you get all of the Holy Spirit you are ever going to get. They believe it to be an infinite amount but the point is there is no second baptism in the Holy Spirit. Many of these folks believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit are no longer functional today having ceased with the death of the apostle John.

Pentecostals believe that you get the Holy Spirit when you are born again but there is also a second baptism in the Holy Spirit in whch the Holy Spirit is “released,” so to speak, to function in your life. This is not to say that He wasn’t doing so before but that He will now be doing it in a more significant way. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is usually accompanied by some of the spiritual gifts, especially speaking in tongues.

I should point out that the above observations are based on my own experiences. When you have 30K+ denominations to pick from, you’re likely to find about every varioation imaginable and a lot you’d never imagine.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Someone asked about a non-catholic interpretation, so I’ll toss one in here that I’m pretty sure won’t contradict any catholic understanding.

The norm for reception of the spirit in the early part of Acts was in conjunction with baptism. However since Acts 8 involved samaritans, it is thought that some in jerusalem were skeptical (since jews and samaritans weren’t on the best of terms). It is thought that Peter and John were sent to do “quality assurance” for lack of a better term and that God held up the samaritans’ reception of the spirit until Peter and John arrived so that they would be convinced that God approved of the inclusion of samaritans in the church.

Thus Acts 8 was a unique exception to the norm of spirit reception with baptism. Acts 10 was a somewhat similar unique exception with God giving the spirit before baptism to convince Peter and the others that He truly wanted gentiles in the church.

 

[edjco]

I see what you are saying, but it reads that they had not received the Holy Spirit as they had “only” been baptized. It doesn’t seem to make a reference that they did not receive the Holy Spirit because they were baptized as Samaritans, at least not that I can see.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I see what you are saying, but it reads that they had not received the Holy Spirit as they had “only” been baptized. It doesn’t seem to make a reference that they did not receive the Holy Spirit because they were baptized as Samaritans, at least not that I can see.

True, it’s a theory that scholars developed to attempt to explain why there were these two deviations from the otherwise standard pattern in Acts of baptism-Spirit reception. It seems reasonable to me, but I would never insist on it’s being 100% true because as you point out there isn’t that level of detail in the passages.