Serious Question for Baptismal Regeneration

[God_Seeker_1]

I was wondering, I heard that Catholics teach that the Holy Spirit comes to someone when they are baptized in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And that this is necessary.

1. Jesus told the apostles that John the baptist baptized with water, but that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit in the upper room in Jerusalem. The Apostles did not need water to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, it does not seem anyway. How therefore can we say it is necessary for water to be used when one is baptized in the Holy Spirit?
2. Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit before the water. How therefore can one be said to receive the holy spirit only through water?

 

[Bookcat]

I was wondering, I heard that Catholics teach that the Holy Spirit comes to someone when they are baptized in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And that this is necessary.

1. Jesus told the apostles that John the baptist baptized with water, but that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit in the upper room in Jerusalem. The Apostles did not need water to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, it does not seem anyway. How therefore can we say it is necessary for water to be used when one is baptized in the Holy Spirit?
2. Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit before the water. How therefore can one be said to receive the holy spirit only through water?

The Church does not teach that it is necessary to receive water baptism to receive the Holy Spirit.

1. Yes the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. We do not know when the Apostles were baptized (such could have happened prior to Pentecost). The Holy Spirit comes more than one time in a Christians life.
2. Yes certainly. As noted the Holy Spirit can come prior to Baptism. The Church Teaches that we are bound to the Sacraments – but God is not.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

So if the spirit comes without water, what does the water do? Like what did waterbdo for dCornelius

 

[Usagi]

The water doesn’t “do” anything. It’s not magical.

GOD cleanses the baptized from original sin, incorporates him into Christ’s Body, and fills him with sanctifying grace.

The baptism with water and the invocation of the Trinity are the visible, tangible sign that God is doing those things.

Can God do all that without the act of baptism? Sure. But He commands us to bring people into his family by the sacramental act, so that’s what we do.

Usagi

 

[God_Seeker_1]

OK I guess I was not clear enough.

Since water doesn’t itself do anything, what did it do for Cornelius? We know he received the holy spirit when he believed, so why did peter then command them to be baptized? What more needed to be done? If the baptists are right when they say that baptism is merely a sign with no grace, then this added work of baptism on Cornelius makes sense. But if in fact baptism actually confers grace, whatmore grace did Cornelius need having already received the spirit? That sounds more clear lol…sorry

 

[Bookcat]

Among other things …as Peter put it in Acts (2: 38) – they would have the “the forgiveness of sins” and “receive the Holy Spirit”.

One is baptized into Christ Jesus …see the letter of St. Paul to the Romans 6:3-4

Baptism is a Sacrament --the water is part of it but it is the act of God that effects what happens.

More on the grace of Baptism: scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#VII

Footnotes to the section:

65 Cf. Acts 2:38; Jn 3:5.
66 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1316.
67 Council of Trent (1546): DS 1515.
68 2 Tim 2:5.
69 2 Cor 5:17; 2 Pet 1:4; cf. Gal 4:5-7.
70 Cf. 1 Cor 6:15; 12:27; Rom 8:17.
71 Cf. 1 Cor 6:19.
72 Eph 4:25.
73 1 Cor 12:13.
74 1 Pet 2:5.
75 1 Pet 2:9.
76 Cf. 1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 5:15.
77 Heb 13:17.
78 Cf. Eph 5:21; 1 Cor 16:15-16; 1 Thess 5:12-13; Jn 13:12-15.
79 Cf. LG 37; CIC, cann. 208-223; CCEO, can. 675:2.
80 LG 11; cf. LG 17; AG 7; 23.
81 UR 3.
82 UR 22 § 2.
83 Cf. Rom 8:29; Council of Trent (1547): DS 1609-1619.
84 Cf. LG 11.
85 Cf. LG 10.
86 St. Augustine, Ep. 98,5L 33,362; Eph 4:30; cf. 1:13-14; 2 Cor 1:21-22.
87 St. Irenaeus, Dem ap. 3:SCh 62,32.
88 Roman Missal, EP I (Roman Canon) 97.

 

[Bookcat]

OK I guess I was not clear enough.

Since water doesn’t itself do anything, what did it do for Cornelius? We know he received the holy spirit when he believed, so why did peter then command them to be baptized? What more needed to be done? If the baptists are right when they say that baptism is merely a sign with no grace, then this added work of baptism on Cornelius makes sense. But if in fact baptism actually confers grace, whatmore grace did Cornelius need having already received the spirit? That sounds more clear lol…sorry

See the post above.

 

[brb3]

OK I guess I was not clear enough.

Since water doesn’t itself do anything, what did it do for Cornelius? We know he received the holy spirit when he believed, so why did peter then command them to be baptized? What more needed to be done? If the baptists are right when they say that baptism is merely a sign with no grace, then this added work of baptism on Cornelius makes sense. But if in fact baptism actually confers grace, whatmore grace did Cornelius need having already received the spirit? That sounds more clear lol…sorry

So then, did Peter err ? Was he wrong to wash the new converts ? U tell us Anglo !!

What did Christ teach in his parting Great Commission to the 11 ? Was Christ wrong ?

 

[brb3]

So if the spirit comes without water, what does the water do? Like what did waterbdo for dCornelius

Reinforced his receipt of HS !! Grace upon grace !

Why do we Catholics need to receive the EUCHARIST on weekly basis ?

Can your soul thrive and be pleasing to God w/o receipt of Body/Blood ? Again, what did Christ teach on the EUCHARIST ? Do you neglect that commandment as well ?

 

[Bookcat]

One aspect to note is that in the case of Cornelius --God went about things in a different manner then at he did after the preaching of Peter at Pentecost ''what must we do brothers" – “repent, and be baptized…and you will receive the Holy Spirit”.

Why? In order for Peter to begin to bring Gentiles into the Church. Cornelius and company began to manifest those particular signs of receiving the Holy Spirit prior to baptism.

 

[brb3]

G.S…

Recall Saul also was enlightened with HS first, then told he needed water Baptism…and he consented to receive it forthwith !

 

[Usagi]

OK I guess I was not clear enough.

Since water doesn’t itself do anything, what did it do for Cornelius? We know he received the holy spirit when he believed, so why did peter then command them to be baptized? What more needed to be done? If the baptists are right when they say that baptism is merely a sign with no grace, then this added work of baptism on Cornelius makes sense. But if in fact baptism actually confers grace, whatmore grace did Cornelius need having already received the spirit? That sounds more clear lol…sorry

Okay, I have a better idea what you are asking now. I also went back and read the story of Cornelius to see exactly what happened.

it seems that “receiving the Holy Spirit” can mean different things in different situations. The Apostles “received the Holy Spirit” in the Upper Room when Jesus conferred on them the power to remit sins, but they also waited to “receive the Holy Spirit” on Pentecost, long afterward. Likewise, Catholics nowadays “receive the Holy Spirit” in Baptism but also in Confirmation, and we often pray “Come, Holy Spirit” outside of a sacramental context as well. I don’t think there’s only one “receiving” of the Spirit after which you are done.

Cornelius and other Gentiles present with him “received the Holy Spirit” in spectacular, visible fashion, with speaking in tongues. Peter compared it to the Apostles’ own reception of the Spirit; I assume he was speaking of Pentecost there. That was God’s way (along with Peter’s earlier vision) of letting the existing (Jewish) Christians know that Cornelius and company could also become Christians.

That Cornelius received an obvious gift of the Spirit before his baptism does not mean that God also cleansed him of Original Sin and marked him as a Christian before baptism. That is, just because Cornelius “had the Spirit” in one specific way does not demonstrate that his baptism was entirely redundant. In any case, Cornelius was an extraordinary situation and should not be cited to prove anything about the more general case.

Usagi

 

[God_Seeker_1]

You also have the Samaritan believers who were baptized in the name of the Lord, but who had not yet received the Holy Spirit. I understand these events were unique, but I thought it would be interesting to ask what exactly did water baptism confer for these folks (Cornelius and the Samaritans) in that they received the Holy Spirit apart from Water Baptism.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

There is no doubt that the apostles and early fathers understood baptism as necessary for salvation, but I am curious to find out what they believed the water to confer when the made the distinction between the descent of the Holy Spirit only afterward through the imposition of hands.

 

[Usagi]

There is no doubt that the apostles and early fathers understood baptism as necessary for salvation, but I am curious to find out what they believed the water to confer when the made the distinction between the descent of the Holy Spirit only afterward through the imposition of hands.

That one (baptism first, Spirit conferred later) can be read as an early illustration of the separation between Baptism and what s now called Confirmation. There was one case, in particular, where the deacon Philip baptized but had to summon the apostles/bishops to confer the Spirit (just as the bishop is still the ordinary minister of Confirmation, while literally anyone can baptize though a priest or deacon is the ordinary minister).

Usagi

 

[brb3]

There is no doubt that the apostles and early fathers understood baptism as necessary for salvation, but I am curious to find out what they believed the water to confer when the made the distinction between the descent of the Holy Spirit only afterward through the imposition of hands.

Peter answered that in his letter.
BAPTISM is an ‘appeal’ to God for a new heart. It is the Christian equivalent of Hebrew circumcision. It seals us into the Christian adoption, the New Israel, the children of New Covenant rebirth, via Christ, into Christ.
It is an Essential Sacrament, #2 for us. Repent (confession#1), and be Baptized#2, for remission of sins & then you will receive HS via Confirmation#3.

This is the Normative sequence for adults. Obviously, God has shown Apostles & us, that the sequence can be slightly altered in ‘temporal’ sense, when it suits the Master’s purposes. Nevertheless, all 3 Sacraments are Essential …plus #4, the Eucharist !
Confession & the Eucharist are esential to perseverance of the Christian.

 

[Bookcat]

You also have the Samaritan believers who were baptized in the name of the Lord, but who had not yet received the Holy Spirit. I understand these events were unique, but I thought it would be interesting to ask what exactly did water baptism confer for these folks (Cornelius and the Samaritans) in that they received the Holy Spirit apart from Water Baptism.

One can say that the Samaritans had been yes baptized -but not yet “had hands laid on them” (what is called the Sacrament of Confirmation now) by an Apostle (or a Bishop) --for they had been baptized by a deacon with no Apostle present–hence two Apostles came and laid hands on them…

Again there are more than one coming of the Holy Spirit. It is not that one does not receive the Holy Spirit in baptism --but that there is more then one sending more than one coming of the Holy Spirit (confirmation is likened to Pentecost --when the Holy Spirit had “fallen” on the Church --see again the text in Acts you refer to —such is even the language used “had not yet fallen on them” --the language of Pentecost).

Ordinarily in the early Church when a Bishop (or an Apostle of course- who the Bishop is the successor of) was present Confirmation was conferred at the time of baptism.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a2.htm#III

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Wait a second, are you saying there are two baptisms in the spirit or one baptism which takes place in two different phases? I’m trying to maintain what Paul says about the one baptism. I think he speaks about spirit baptism.

 

[Bookcat]

Wait a second, are you saying there are two baptisms in the spirit or one baptism which takes place in two different phases? I’m trying to maintain what Paul says about the one baptism. I think he speaks about spirit baptism.

Two Sacraments – Baptism and what is now called Confirmation. See above post

As to Baptism --there is only one Baptism.

And Paul in noting there is one Baptism – is referring to the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

[Bookcat]

One can use the term “baptize” in other ways --like when Jesus said there is a baptism he was to receive (his suffering and death) …

But “baptism” as a Sacrament is about one and only one Baptism.