Receiving the Holy Spirit

[TimothyH]

I think you’ve lost the original context of my question, which I was asking about the church at Corinth not the Church “as a whole”:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12661894#post12661894

I’ve read those passages, but they have nothing to do with the question I asked about the church at Corinth - "where in 1 Corinthians 1 does it state that everybody in the church at Corinth was baptized in water? 1 Corinthians 12:13 is addressing being baptized in the Spirit, not baptized in water. You have to take the context of a passage into consideration before using it to defend a belief.

That only further proves my point. If baptism “saved” a person, they Jesus would have sent Paul to baptize, since that would be the “means” of salvation. The fact that Jesus didn’t send Paul to do that only proves that water baptism isn’t the means of salvation - the spreading of the Gospel is!

1 Peter 3:21

-Tim-

 

[steve_b]

I think you’ve lost the original context of my question, which I was asking about the church at Corinth not the Church “as a whole”:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12661894#post12661894

I’ve read those passages, but they have nothing to do with the question I asked about the church at Corinth - "where in 1 Corinthians 1 does it state that everybody in the church at Corinth was baptized in water? 1 Corinthians 12:13 is addressing being baptized in the Spirit, not baptized in water. You have to take the context of a passage into consideration before using it to defend a belief.

taking your points in order

• To bring someone into the Church they must be baptised.
• Water baptism is Trinitarian or it isn’t valid. That means one is baptized in the name of
• the Father
• the Son
• the Holy Spirit
• speaking of context
• [In Context](1 - - Bible Gateway Peter+3:20-22&version=RSVCE)

t:

That only further proves my point. If baptism “saved” a person, they Jesus would have sent Paul to baptize, since that would be the “means” of salvation. The fact that Jesus didn’t send Paul to do that only proves that water baptism isn’t the means of salvation - the spreading of the Gospel is!

Paul didn’t personally have to baptize anyone. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in each location do that. They are the ones directly responsible for the local day to day shepherding of the people in their charge.

 

[TimothyH]

https://followpurity.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/follow_jesus.jpg?w=270&h=300

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. God can do what He wants, but He can’t contradict His Own Word.

And He doesn’t.

1. The fact that these folks received the Spirit before receiving water baptism, contradicts the belief that people receive the Spirit during water baptism, which contradicts the interpretation that Jesus is referring to water baptism in John 3:5. (“Unless one is born of water and the Spirit” he cannot enter the kingdom of God.") Notice, Jesus doesn’t say “Spirit” and then the “water.” Rather, Jesus is saying “water” and “Spirit” - simultaneously.
   a. That passage doesn’t say any such thing. If anything, the Spirit descended confirming what Peter said a few verses back: “…everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43).
   b. Again, that passage doesn’t say that. The Spirit descending on them confirmed what Peter had just said (see above). Plus, if water baptism was “required” then why would Paul tell the Corinthians that he was “glad” that he didn’t baptize anyone except for only 2 people? (1 Corinthians 1)

Paul didn’t baptize many people because that was not how he viewed his primary role in the Church. And he was glad of that because of the dispute in Corinth…he didn’t want anyone claiming that they had been baptized into Paul or in the name of Paul.

And, if water baptism was “required” then ANYONE who wasn’t baptized in water would end up in Hell, like those baptized by desire, baptized of blood, invincibly ignorant, & unbaptized babies who die. You can’t say something is “required” & then give exceptions to it without contradicting the words of our Lord.

Nope. This is just a passionate expression of your own personal opinion, but you are in error, and because you are a fallen-away Catholic, I do understand what drives you to argue for days on end about something you are clearly wrong about. If you’re wrong about this, then you were wrong to leave the Church. I get it.

This is not that complex. It is normatively necessary (look that up if you aren’t 100% sure what it means) that people receive water baptism and that they receive the Holy Spirit through that sacrament.

The fact that God baptized some people in the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water simply proves that this is not ABSOLUTELY necessary.

Acts 10
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues** and praising God.

Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Peter ORDERED that Spirit-filled believers be baptized WITH WATER.

It appears that water baptism was important to Peter.**

 

[God_I_Love]

And He doesn’t.

Paul didn’t baptize many people because that was not how he viewed his primary role in the Church. And he was glad of that because of the dispute in Corinth…he didn’t want anyone claiming that they had been baptized into Paul or in the name of Paul.

Nope. This is just a passionate expression of your own personal opinion, but you are in error, and because you are a fallen-away Catholic, I do understand what drives you to argue for days on end about something you are clearly wrong about. If you’re wrong about this, then you were wrong to leave the Church. I get it.

This is not that complex. It is normatively necessary (look that up if you aren’t 100% sure what it means) that people receive water baptism and that they receive the Holy Spirit through that sacrament.

The fact that God baptized some people in the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water simply proves that this is not ABSOLUTELY necessary.

Acts 10
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues** and praising God.

Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water**. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Peter ORDERED that Spirit-filled believers be baptized WITH WATER.

It appears that water baptism was important to Peter.

So would those who receive the Spirit, without water, be able to enter the kingdom of heaven? Could the water also possibly have been the Gospel Peter spoke?

 

[thetazlord]

I NEVER said that they were baptized in the name of an apostle!!! I said the EXACT same thing as you. :banghead:

Nowhere in that passage is there ANY indication that there remained people in the church that were unbaptized. YOU are reading something there that does not exist. Paul was not stationary at one congregation. He moved around as evidenced by his letters to the various churches. Are you saying that there was no one left as an overseer of the congregation that would have had the ability to have baptized believers?

I read no less than 5 Protestant commentaries on this passage and they all agree with interpretation that I and others on this post have said. It has absolutely nothing to do with Paul leaving people unbaptized and the assertion that he did only comes from skewing his words out of context. A couple of the commentaries I read said that most likely the others had been baptized by Timothy.

Then show me the verse in 1 Corinthians 1 that states that “everybody” in that church was baptized.

 

[thetazlord]

Entrance requirements into each covenant changed from OT to NT.

Entrance into the new covenant is baptism, and applies to both genders.
Entrance into the old covenant was through circumcision which was for males.

#23 are you refering to that post?

As I said previously

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

No offense, but simply repeating yourself that circumcision involved males, while baptism involves both genders doesn’t answer my question that if baptism “replaces” circumcism, then “why” are both genders involved, since a true “replacement” would involve the same individuals - in this case males only. Try again.

The language is flowery, but it is based on covenantal understanding between old and new covenant. The following is more direct re: the theology of circumcision.

1 Corinthians 7:19 , Galatians 5:2 , Galatians 6:15

These verses either talk about “figurative” circumcision (the “cutting” away of the flesh - spiritually) or literal circumcision. They don’t support baptism “replacing” circumcision in the new covenant.

That’s true.

and purgatory doesn’t change that dynamic. All those who go to purgatory for purification, eventually go to heaven. Since we don’t know how God will judge each soul, we pray for the dead, just in case they are in purgatory. If in hell no prayers will do them any good.

Baptism saves… if… one doesn’t die with mortal sin on their soul. Those souls who die in mortal sin, don’t go to purgatory, they go straight to hell.

But if water baptism saves, then purgatory (assuming it exists) would be ineffective for unbaptized people who die, because the interpretation of John 3:5 is that “unless one is baptized IN water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God.” Therefore, anyone who is NOT baptized in water & dies (unbaptized babies, baptized by desire, baptized of blood, invincibly ignorant, etc) would not end up in purgatory of Heaven, but in Hell, because they weren’t baptized IN water. To believe otherwise, would be to contradict the interpretation of John 3:5 that the “water” refers to the waters of baptism. Do you see the problem with that interpretation?

 

[thetazlord]

Nope. This is just a passionate expression of your own personal opinion, but you are in error, and because you are a fallen-away Catholic, I do understand what drives you to argue for days on end about something you are clearly wrong about. If you’re wrong about this, then you were wrong to leave the Church. I get it.

This is not that complex. It is normatively necessary (look that up if you aren’t 100% sure what it means) that people receive water baptism and that they receive the Holy Spirit through that sacrament.

I understand what “normatively necessary” means, but based on the “water” in John 3:5 referring to the waters of baptism, if you read it in the Greek, Jesus wouldn’t be saying water baptism would be “normatively necessary,” but REQUIRED, by using the Greek words translated “unless,” “cannot,” & “must,” which mean the ONLY way, not “normative.” So, you can’t say water baptism is “necessary” & then make exceptions, without contradicting your interpretation of John 3:5.

The fact that God baptized some people in the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water simply proves that this is not ABSOLUTELY necessary.

No, it proves that you are contradicting your interpretation of John 3:5, & than water baptism isn’t “obsolutely necessary,” nor “necessary” for salvation at all, since water baptism isn’t “a” means, nor “the” means of salvation.

Acts 10
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues** and praising God.

Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water**. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Peter ORDERED that Spirit-filled believers be baptized WITH WATER.

It appears that water baptism was important to Peter.

Important, yes. Did Peter believe it was required for salvation, no. This passage doesn’t support that assumption.

 

[thetazlord]

taking your points in order

• To bring someone into the Church they must be baptised.
• Water baptism is Trinitarian or it isn’t valid. That means one is baptized in the name of
• the Father
• the Son
• the Holy Spirit
• speaking of context
• [In Context](1 - - Bible Gateway Peter+3:20-22&version=RSVCE)

Paul didn’t personally have to baptize anyone. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in each location do that. They are the ones directly responsible for the local day to day shepherding of the people in their charge.

Actually, repenting & believing in Christ brings one into the Church, not water baptism. Water baptism is what already saved, believed, & repented Christians do after they are saved - not “during.” You still haven’t show me in 1 Corinthians 1 that ALL of the people in the Corinthian church were baptized in water.

 

[slh3016]

Then show me the verse in 1 Corinthians 1 that states that “everybody” in that church was baptized.

Your question is like asking someone to show you the words “Bible” or “Trinity” in the Bible.

I give up. Not because you are right but because, in your prejudice, you can’t even read and interpret that passage with the proper meaning.

You disagree with me.
You disagree with all the others on here who can plainly see the meaning of the passage.
You disagree with the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching.
You disagree with every single Protestant commentary I found regarding this passage.

So who do you agree with? Anybody but yourself? Sounds like you left the papacy of Peter for the papacy of thetazlord.

And sadly, NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OP!!!

I apologize to the OP for allowing myself to get drawn into this and derailing this thread. This argument should have been taken to a different thread.

 

[thetazlord]

1 Peter 3:21

-Tim-

Sorry, but that verse says baptism that saves is an “antitype” (Greek: a physical sign of a spiritual reality). Peter is saying the waters of baptism “symbolize” the Flood water, which is a “type” of baptism. But the wicked - not the righteous - got killed in the Flood. The righteous entered the ark, which is what saved them, not the waters of the Flood. So, what actually saves us is being “in Christ,” just as getting “in the ark” saved the righteous Noah & His family. Baptism is what we do after we are saved & “in Christ” which symbolizes us “dying” to our old way of life & “rising” to new life (Romans Ch.6).

If it did refer to salvation though, then ANYBODY who wasn’t baptized in water would end up in Hell (John 3:5).

 

[thetazlord]

What bating are you talking about?

It is a question to you…why do you think your positions, which are against the teachings of the Catholic Church, are correct and the the CC wrong?

What makes your interpretations correct? Don’t you know? Or you just assumed you are correct, and cannot err in anyway?

You’re specifically asking me if I am questioning the authority of the Catholic. For me to respond would violate forum rules. By asking me to respond, you are bating me. I won’t answer your question, because I wish to respect forum rules & obey them.

BTW, my authority is the Word of God, not “my interpretations,” because I begin with Scripture, not my preconceived religious view.

 

[slh3016]

You’re specifically asking me if I am questioning the authority of the Catholic. For me to respond would violate forum rules. By asking me to respond, you are bating me. I won’t answer your question, because I wish to respect forum rules & obey them.

I want to be knowledgeable so that I never unintentionally break forum rules by asking that question of another member (if such a rule exists)…can you kindly point me to that rule? I scrolled rather quickly through the forum rules and didn’t see it (or shall I say, it didn’t pop out at me).

Thank you!

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

---

Please return to topic and stay there. Baptism is not the topic and any further off topic posts will be cited and removed.

70 posts have already been removed.

Be advised that the* Forum Rules plainly state.**

DISCUSSION FORUMS

1. 
   *]Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.

 

[cjforJesus]

I am a newbie to the Catholic faith (in fact hoping to be received into the Church this Easter). Prior to this my Christian background is literally just about 3 months attending a Baptist Church about 15 years ago.

My question is this:

I have just watched nearly 6 hours of David Pawson (not a Catholic but a great Bible scholar) on Youtube talking about the Christian life etc.and it has awoken an old insecurity that has made me wonder if i have in fact ‘got it’.

Mr Pawson was asked about receiving the Holy Spirit. He stated that it was an essential for knowing yourself as a follower of Jesus and that everyone who has the Spirit would know it as when the Spirit comes to dwell within it’s a significant and sometimes earth shattering kind of experience.

Well i have never had that kind of experience. Of course i question my motivation for wanting it as a possible reason why it hasn’t happened. Do i want it for myself or others? Do i want it as a kind of status symbol?

Is this sort of experience more common in charasmatic churches?
For anyone that found their faith slowly and without ever having had a eureka moment does this have any significance. It confuses me.

Receiving the Holy Spirit: The Catechism states that we receive the Holy Spirit at Baptism We are incorporated into the body of Christ and become temples of the Holy Spirit.

 

[SJacob7]

Receiving the Holy Spirit: The Catechism states that we receive the Holy Spirit at Baptism We are incorporated into the body of Christ and become temples of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, you are correct. And Holy Scripture tells us that some received the Holy Spirit before baptism, some received it after baptism, and some never received it although they were baptized.

I have a hard time reconciling the Catechism with Holy Scriptures.

 

[cjforJesus]

Yes, you are correct. And Holy Scripture tells us that some received the Holy Spirit before baptism, some received it after baptism, and some never received it although they were baptized.

I have a hard time reconciling the Catechism with Holy Scriptures.

Why? Jesus said to be baptised and receive the Holy Spirit. It is very simple.

 

[SJacob7]

Why? Jesus said to be baptised and receive the Holy Spirit. It is very simple.

Why? As I stated before, the Catechism states that you receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. Holy Scripture states that some people receive the Holy Spirit before baptism, some receive the Holy Spirit after baptism, and some never received the Holy Spirit even though they were baptized. So I can’t understand why the Catechism says that you receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. Obviously, you can receive the Holy Spirit before, during or after baptism (That is if you believe Scripture).

Could you point out to where Jesus said to be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit? Thanks! I’m just trying to understand is all.

 

[TimothyH]

You guys are reading the Bible too literally. We have to remember that different authors were talking about different things when they wrote about receiving the Holy Spirit.

Luke/Paul = Charismatic expression of the Spirit
John = Peace, joy and hidden, interior, contemplative fruits of the Spirit

As an example, Luke was writing about speaking in tongues, preaching boldly, miracles, etc. Luke is the one who writes about Pentecost and the mighty works of Peter and Paul who healed the lame and raised the dead just like the prophets of the Old Testament. John however, was writing about experiencing God spiritually, divine intimacy and filial adoption, oneness with God, consolation, peace and joy which are fruits of the Spirit, just like David who is consoled by God in the Psalms. John is the one who has Jesus saying, “Peace be with you” as he breathes on the disciples and gives them God’s Spirit.

They are talking about two different things. Luke and Paul were charismatics. John was contemplative, more like the early desert fathers, more like a monk.

Everyone is taking it too literally. You can’t read the Bible like that. You have to understand the context and the overall themes the human authors were trying to communicate.

-Tim-

 

[cjforJesus]

Why? As I stated before, the Catechism states that you receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. Holy Scripture states that some people receive the Holy Spirit before baptism, some receive the Holy Spirit after baptism, and some never received the Holy Spirit even though they were baptized. So I can’t understand why the Catechism says that you receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. Obviously, you can receive the Holy Spirit before, during or after baptism (That is if you believe Scripture).

Could you point out to where Jesus said to be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit? Thanks! I’m just trying to understand is all.

For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [17] Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. [18] And when Simon saw, that by the imposition of the HANDS OFthe APOSTLES, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, [19] Saying: Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I shall lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said to him: [20] Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

At that time Johns baptism was a baptism of repentance. The imposition of hands as occurs in apostolic succession is how the sacrament is confered. Repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus as in by His authority. He bestowed the Holy Spirit on the apostles.